

















































SPEECH 


OP 


c 

HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, OF PA., 

U ' * 


ON THE 


BILL GRANTING ONE QUARTER SECTION OF THE PUBLIC 
LAND TO ACTUAL SETTLERS. 


DELIVERED 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 3, 1852. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1852. 


i 





SPEECH. 


The House having resolved itself in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union* 
■and taken up for consideration the bill “ to encourage agriculture, commerce, manufac- 

* tures, and all other branches of industry, by granting to every man who is the head of 

* a family and a citizen of the United States, a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres 

* of land, out of the public domain, upon condition of occupancy and cultivation of the 

* same for the period herein specified,”— 

Mr. Dawson said: 

Mr. Chairman : I am in favor of the principle of this bill and of 
its general provisions. I shall consume but a very small portion of 
the time of the House in assigning the reasons why I shall give to 
it my support. 

The proposition to donate the public lands in limited quantities, 
and with certain limitations, to actual setders, is one of growing 
importance and of increasing interest to a large portion of the Amer¬ 
ican people. In the few remarks that I shall submit in support of 
the general proposition, I shall avoid and discountenance any view 
that may approximate, or even give color to a leveling or an agra¬ 
rian spirit. I shall avoid any sanction, or any attempt at a demon¬ 
stration of the problem, that there is a natural or indefeasible right 
inherent in every citizen to occupy and enjoy land without price, 
condition, or grant. 

The structure of our Government is republican, not only in 
theory, but it is truly so in all its practical operations. There is no 
Government in existence now, nor none known to history, where 
the path to honor and distinction is so broad and so generally trod¬ 
den as that which has been pointed out under the guidance of our 
Federal Constitution, nor none where the rewards of labor have been 
more certain or more generally diffused. 

I shall treat the question as one not only wise and just in itself, 
but as political in its conception and results—-as being intimately 
connected with and forming a part of our political economy. 

Our own brief experience as a nation is illustrating the historic 
truth, that Governments commit egregious errors; that they grow 
wild in the extravagance of their expenditures as the national reve¬ 
nues increase, to an extent evincing not only great prosperity, but 



4 

great national wealth. In the course of my remarks, I shall take 
occasion to draw the attention of the House and of the country to 
the large and increasing receipt into the national treasury under 
our revenue system, and to the corresponding expenditure that is 
marked as a consequence, leaving the inference to be drawn 
whether the administration of the Government would not be more 
just, more pure, and more economical, without any real or antici¬ 
pated revenue from the sales of the public lands. 

In the vast possessions of the Government, known as the public 
domain, there is comprised an area of fourteen hundred millions of 
acres. Its boundary finds now but a mere scattered beginning on 
the northwestern borders of Ohio, which was but recently the 
frontier settlement, and extends through the fertile valley of the 
Mississippi to the shores of the Pacific ocean, and from the lakes on 
the north to the Gulf of Mexico and the waters of the Atlantic. It 
embraces a variety of soil and a variety of climate, enriched in min¬ 
eral wealth, and fruitful in agricultural productions. There would 
seem to be nothing wanting to develop its mighty resources, to ele¬ 
vate it to the capacity, the power, and dignity of a mighty empire, 
but to encourage its settlement, to secure its improvement, to stim¬ 
ulate and strengthen the arm that will fell the forest, cultivate the 
wild prairie, and reclaim the wet and waste lands. It was said by 
an eminent author that he that would make two spears of grass 
grow where but one would have grown, deserved the thanks of 
the community. This remark was made in the spirit of true 
philosophy, and its practical operation in determining a new policy 
for the management of the public domain, is deserving the favor¬ 
able consideration of the American Congress. 

The title in the General Government to the public domain has 
been acquired by deeds of cession, and by purchase through trea¬ 
ties with the Indians, as well as with France, Spain, and Mexico. 
The success of the revolution of independence gave the colonies or 
independent States a claim or title to the country lying or situate 
between the Canadas and Louisiana, which then belonged to 
France, and from the New England coast to the east bank of the 
Mississippi river. To avoid a feud that threatened from an angry 
conflict growing out of unsettled State boundaries, States equal in 
sovereignty and independence, ceded or conveyed to the General 
Government their right to the public domain. If Virginia was not 
the first to lead the way in this great sacrifice or contribution to the 
common fund, it is nevertheless true—and she may refer to it with 
pride, as forming a bright passage upon the page of her history— 
that after the gallant part she bore in the cause of the Revolution, 
from the adoption of the Declaration of Independence to the sur¬ 
render of Cornwallis upon her own soil, she conveyed to the Gen¬ 
eral Government her right to the most magnificent region of country 
upon which the eye of man has ever rested. It stretches from 
the Ohio to the Mississippi and to the Lakes, and comprises the 
States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and now 



5 


contains a population of 4,523,139 souls—a country possessing 
great commercial advantages—almost unlimited in agricultural 
resources—penetrated by beautiful rivers-—crossed by artificial 
lines of communication connecting the Ohio and the Mississippi 
with the lakes—covered with churches, school-houses, cities, towns, 
and villages, and exhibiting all the evidences of high and unprece¬ 
dented prosperity, and State after State will yet surpass Virginia 
herself, as Ohio has already done, and vie with her upon this floor 
for numerical preponderance in the councils of the nation. 

By an examination of the books of the Land Office, I have ascer¬ 
tained that the number of acres of public land in each State and 
territory unsold and undisposed of on the 30th of June, 1851, was 
1,400,632,305.48, and are distributed as follows: 


States and Territories, 

Ohio. 

Indiana.. 

Illinois.. 

Missouri. 

Alabama.. 

Mississippi.. 

Louisiana. 

Michigan. 

Arkansas.. 

Florida. 

Iowa .... 

Wisconsin. 

California. 

Minnesota Territory.. 

Oregon Territory_ 

New Mexico Territory, 

Utah Territory. 

Northwest Territory. . 

Nebraska Territory_ 

Indian Territory.. 

Total. 


Acres undisposed of, 
302,195.62 
1,049,680.91 
8,219,628.72 
26,635,589.32 
15,486,849.23 
8,849,165.11 
13,579,384.47 
20,011,143.77 
22,303,746.72 
32,863,518.66 
25,661,550.27 
24,506,294.83 
120,447,840.00 
50,075,931.85 
206,349,333.00 
127,383,040.00 
113,589,013.00 
376,040,960.00 
87,488,000.00 
119,789,440.00 
1,400,632,305.48 


The aggregate cost of the public lands, to the 1st of January, 
1850, the date of the last computation, was as follows, viz: 


Cost of purchasing.$61,121,717.12 

" surveying. 6,369,838.07 

“ selling and managing. 7,466,324.19 

$74,957,879.38 


The aggregate receipts from the sales of’ public lands from the 
earliest period to the 1st of January, 1850, amounted to the sum of 
$135,339,093 17. 

No estimate has as yet been made for the newdy-acquired Terri¬ 
tories, or for California, and cannot be made until the land system 
has been extended to the Pacific, and the actual cost of surveying 
&c., ascertained. 




























6 

Deduct then, the actual or aggregate cost from the aggregate 
receipts, and it leaves a net balance—a clear profit—in favor of the 
Government of $60,381,213 79. 

In this computation of cost is included the fifteen millions paid to 
France, under the treaty of 1803, for Louisiana, and the five millions 
paid to Spain, under the treaty of 1819, for the Floridas. By 
deducting this amount ($20,000,000) from the cost, the actual profit 
to the Government would be $80,381,213 79. 

I propose to make this deduction for the reason that, in the pur¬ 
chase of Louisiana, the value of the land within its limits formed no 
part of the consideration whatever. The Government of the United 
States found it to be their true policy—an indispensable policy—to 
get possession and command of the mouth of the Mississippi and 
the Gulf of Mexico, a policy dictated by every consideration of 
commercial interest, as well as by every consideration, in a military 
point of view, pertaining to the defence of the country. 

The same policy governed in the purchase of the Floridas. This 
then, is the most favorable exhibit that can be made of the land 
system, as a source of profit and revenue to the Government, in a 
period of sixty : four years, from 1787 to 1850. 

It also appears that, within a fraction, the one half of the above 
sum was the result of the receipts for the two years of 1835 and 
1836. In 1835, the receipts amounted to $14,787,600 75, and in 
1836, to $24,877,179 86. 

These extraordinary receipts were the result of reckless spec¬ 
ulation, created and stimulated by a depreciated paper currency, 
which at that time was receivable for public dues, and the evil 
was only arrested by the issuing of the specie circular by President 
Jackson. 

To such an extent had the national Treasury become burdened 
from the proceeds of the land, that distribution was resorted to, and 
Congress, by the act of 23d of June, 1836, concluded to deposit with 
the several States of the Union the sum of $37,468,859 97, of which 
sum actual deposit was made of $27,063,430 80. 

As a mere question, then, of investment in the abstract, the Gov¬ 
ernment might here rest, for it has been more than reimbursed. But 
in this view of the subject, the question of profit as connected with 
and forming a part of, our political economy, presents itself in another 
light. Commerce is the life and support of every nation. Its found¬ 
ation is to be traced to the cultivation of the soil, and its prosperity 
reckoned by the extent of its agricultural production. 

In ancient times, it was commerce that gave wealth and power 
and grandeur to Carthage, and Tyre, and Alexandria, and in modern 
times, wealth and empire to Holland and to Venice. The loss of 
their commerce was the decay of their prosperity and the loss of 
empire. Should it not, then, be our policy to extend far and wide 
the basis of our agricultural interest, and thus lay broad and deep, 
the foundation of our commercial prosperity? 

I might here inquire to what extent, then, would the passage of 


7 

this bill induce settlement and increase production. The most lib¬ 
eral estimate of those who 1 could avail themselves of the provisions 
of the bill would not exceed a million of persons. One hundred 
and sixty millions of acres of wild land, settled, improved, and 
cultivated, as the result of a policy, shadowed forth and guarantied 
by the passage of this bill, would not only extend far and wide the 
basis of our agricultural interests, but it would extend far and wide, 
and secure our commercial supremacy. 

The increase of agricultural productions consequent upon such 
settlement and cultivation would be almost incalculable. The single 
item of wheat, estimating a surplus over and above the necessary 
wants of the producer, at three bushels per acre, would be equal to 
480,000,000 of bushels; valued at fifty cents per bushel, would 
amount to $240,000,000. The same rule and estimate will apply 
to all the other great variety of agricultural productions, the result 
of settlement, improvement, and cultivation of the soil. 

A million of freemen, by the liberal action of their own Govern¬ 
ment, put in possession of a limited quantity of wild land—a 
home—would soon supply themselves and families with the neces¬ 
saries and comforts of life. The history of all prosperous commu¬ 
nities exhibits the fact, that we supply our wants and consult our 
comforts in proportion to the means within our control. With 
increased means comes an increased demand for all those supplies, 
the interchange of which is the life of commerce, and constitutes 
one of the main elements of national prosperity. Much that con¬ 
tributes to our necessary wants and comforts, is the result of 
foreign production, not only of foreign fabrics, but the production 
of foreign climates. Assume, then, that each landholder created 
by the passage of this bill would, in consequence of the increased 
production, the result of his own labor, be enabled to supply him¬ 
self and family with foreign productions and fabrics to the value 
of but fifty dollars per annum, and it would increase our annual im¬ 
ports $50,000,000; the revenue derivable from which, under our 
present revenue system of thirty per cent., would yield annually 
to the national Treasury the sum of $15,000,000. The increased 
importation thus created, would induce a corresponding export of 
agricultural produce—the result of a wise, just, and benevolent 
system of governmental policy, which had caused two spears of grass 
to grow where but one would have grown. 

If it is true, as it has been alleged, that it is the policy of the Gov¬ 
ernment to cling to the public domain as a source of revenue and 
profit, I insist that no grander scheme of speculation can be devised 
than the passage of this very bill. All land speculations in the 
valley of the Mississippi have proved successful just in proportion 
to the extent of the surrounding settlements, improvement, and 
cultivation. The very basis upon which the numerous grants 
heretofore made by Congress of alternate sections of the public land 
to aid in the construction of roads, canals, and railroads, was the 
assumed increased value that would be given to the remaining sec- 


8 

tions by the construction of such improvements. It is the great 
argument relied upon in support of the numerous applications and 
bills for the partial appropriation of the public domain to aid in the 
construction of State works and corporate improvements. If Con¬ 
gress has recognized the principle and acknowledged the force of 
the argument, by sanctioning this system of partial legislation, why 
not carry out the principle and extend the policy ? I am opposed 
to this partial legislation ; and in the general scramble that is about 
to ensue for the public domain, I want this bill to stand first and 
foremost upon the statute-book. 

Mr. Chairman, in the examination and discussion of this subject, 
it is important to remark, for it is true, as exhibited by legislative 
history, that the policy of the Government in the management of the 
public lands, with a view to revenue, has for years contemplated a 
change—a relaxation, if not a total abandonment, of such policy. 

As early as 1832, General Jackson, in his annual message to 
Congress stated that— 

“It cannot be doubted that the speedy settlement of these lands constitute the true 
interest of the Republic. The wealth and strength of a country are its population; and 
the best part of the population are the cultivators of the soil. Independent farmers 
are everywhere the basis of society, and true friends of liberty. It seems to me to be 
our true policy that the public lands shall cease as soon as practicable to be a source of 
revenue.” 

In the year 1840, the aggregate revenues of the Government were 
$17,666,450 03. The expenditures reached to $24,139,920 11. 
In 1851, the revenues reached to $52,312,979 87. The aggregate 
current expenditures for the same year were $50,952,902 59. 

In 1840, the population of the United States was 17,069,453. In 
1850, it was 23,257,723. Mark the disparity! Why this extraor¬ 
dinary increase of expenditure? The question can be readily 
answered. The Treasury is too full—its overflowing stimulates an 
ardent, impatient, and resistless appetite for extravagant expendi¬ 
ture. In the presence of its glittering and imposing influence, all 
the old-fashioned practical notions and safeguards of political econo¬ 
my relax and give way. By the last report of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, submitted to Congress December 26th, 1851, it appears, 
that by including the balance on hand at the close of the preceding 
fiscal year, it is found that the surplus in the Treasury on the first 
of July, 1851, after deducting the current expenses, was $10,911,- 
645 68 . It appears further, by the same report, that the estimated 
receipts for the fiscal year 1852, will be $51,800,000; whilst the 
expenditures are estimated at $42,892,299 19, being an excess of 
receipts over expenditures of $8,907,700 81. I may inquire, then, 
under this state of facts, in the language of President Jackson, if it 
is not now “practicable” that the public lands should “cease” “to 
be a source of revenue.” 

That the period has arrived when they should cease to be a source 
of revenue is not only indicated by the recent legislation of Congress, 
but that they will not for years yield revenue is acknowledged in 
the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, made by Mr. Convin to 


9 

Congress on the 17th of December, 1850.—Ex. Doc. No. 11, page 
12. In referring to the sources of revenue, and particularly to that 
portion heretofore derivable from the sales of the public lands, the 
report sets forth, that “this source of revenue” “should not here¬ 
after be relied upon with any certainty, or to any considerable 
‘amount, in estimating the receipts of the Treasury.” 

It further appears by the same report that “ By the various acts 
‘of Congress appropriating the public lands to objects which with- 
1 draw them from ordinary revenue purposes, it is quite certain that 
‘for several years to come the Treasury must be mainly if not 
‘ entirely dependent for its receipts upon duties levied upon foreign 
‘merchandise:” and that “the law recently enacted, giving lands 
‘to those who served in the war with Mexico, and, at the last ses- 
‘ sion, to such as had served in former wars, in addition to grants 
* to States for internal improvements, will undoubtedly supply the 
‘ market with the greater portion of the lands that will be required 
‘for occupation for many years to come.” 

The quantity of lands sold and taken from market by virtue of 
these warrants for the years 1847, 1848, and 1849, is 14,727,742.40 
acres; the warrants yet to be presented under these acts will require 
78,922,513 acres—in all 93,650,245.40 acres; and at the most 
liberal average, “over sixteen years will be required to absorb 
‘and satisfy the warrants yet to be issued as estimated, under the 
‘ several bounty land acts now in force.” This exhibit presents a 
state of things requiring the fullest consideration of Congress, and a 
speedy and radical change in the policy and management of our 
land system. What better plan, then, can be suggested than that 
proposed by the bill now under consideration ? What more just in 
its conception—more benevolent in its objects—more conducive to a 
rigid political economy, or more certain in its practical results, to 
swell the aggregate of the national wealth, and advance the great 
commercial interests of the country? 

The power of Congress over the public domain cannot be ques¬ 
tioned, for it is contained in the Constitution, and is of the broadest 
kind. The third section of the fourth article is in these words : 

“ The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regula¬ 
tions respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States, and nothing 
in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, 
or of any particular State.” 

The power of Congress over the public domain to make dona¬ 
tions and grants is not only given by the Constitution, but it has 
been freely and liberally exercised from the foundation of the Gov¬ 
ernment up to the present time; at all events, from 3d of March, 
1803, to the 20th of September, 1850, the date of the act granting 
about 3,025,920 acres to the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and 
Illinois, to aid in the construction of the Chicago and Mobile rail¬ 
road. 

For the purpose of showing that the power has been exercised, 
and the extent to which it has been exercised, I refer to the exhibit 


10 


of “ donations ” and grants to the different States for the various 
purposes mentioned: 



1 — 

1 ^ 

11 

I S® 

o 

Ei 

1*2,064,853.97 

4,169,302.60 

11,126,802.88 

4,701,678.20 

2,263,014.99 

4,234,578.56 

10,572,115.56 

6.446.742.97 

7.734.561.99 

2.127.576.97 

4,078,457.14 

4.849.920.99 

500,000.00 

3,039,631.00 

12,186,987.00 

7,493,120.00 

6,681,707.00 

OO 

OO 

2 

§ 

s 

sis 

IP 

2,246,400 

230,400 

549,120 

_ 

1 

§ 

n 

I 1 

303,329.00 

981,682.00 

1,833,412.94 

1,517,287.00 

436,450.00 

2,239,987.00 

8,877,998.58 

4,544,189.00 

4,807,673.00 

562,170.00 

33,813.00 

1,259,269.00 

1 

1 

li 

8,805,976.00 

149,L02.00 

305.75 

_ 

j 

l 1 

1,552,877.96 

787,896.61 

5.541.680.30 

1,409,653.20 

144,800.00 

67,602.25 

353,580.00 

271,796.97 

1.342.285.31 

31,240.00 

2,246,635.06 

1,715,418.17 

42,440.00 

S3 

i 

1 

m 

.iim.ilii!. 

! 

| li 

32,141.24 

843.44 

954.64 

1,981.53 

15,965.31 

8,412.98 

4,080.00 

139,366.25 

52,114.00 

18,226.86 

5,705.82 

! 

1 

1,243,001.77 

1,609,861.61 

500,000.00 

500,000.00 

500,000.00 

500,000.00 

500,000.00 

500,000.00 

500,000.00 

500,000.00 

825,078.22 

858,400.00 

500,000.00 

§ 

i 

ini 

2 a 

1!. 

1 

Donations 
and grants 

universities, 

&.C. 

727,528 

637,357 

1,001,795 

1,222,179 

925,814 

860,624 

832,124 

1,113,477 

932,540 

954,583 

951,224 

1,004,728 

2,997,191 

12,186,987 

7,493,120 

6,681,707 

! 

ill 

m t 

Ohio. 

Indiana. 

Missouri. 

Alabama. 

Mississippi. 

Louisiana. 

Michigan. 

Arkansas. 

Florida. 

Iowa. 

Wisconsin. 

California. 

Minnesota Territory. 

Oregon Territory - 

New Mexico Ter.... 

Utah Territory. 



To come, however, more directly to a full illustration of the con¬ 
stitutionality, not only of the principle of this bill, but of its prac¬ 
tical recognition by Congress, I need but refer to the act of the 27th 
of September, 1850, making donations of public lands in the Ter- 




































11 

ritory of Oregon to actual settlers. By the provisions of that bill, 
the actual settler is entitled to receive from one hundred and sixty 
to six hundred and forty acres, depending upon the time of his 
settlement and his condition, whether married or not. 

No doubt can exist, then, as to the constitutional right of Congress 
to legislate in the premises. The exercise of the right in making a 
disposition of this kind of public property, depends upon the views 
of Congress under the circumstances before them. 

The proposition, benevolent and patriotic in its conception, so far 
has neither been strengthened by the power, nor incumbered by the 
prejudice of party, but by the force of merit is attracting public 
consideration, and gaining strength and power through the force of 
public sentiment. It has received the sanction of Mr. Webster, 
now the Secretary of State. Whilst a member of the Senate of 
the United States, he introduced on the 22d day of January, 1850, 
the following resolution: 

“ Resolved ,, That provision ought to be made bylaw that every male citizen of the 
United States, and every male person who has declared his intention of becoming a citizen 
according to the provisions of law, of twenty-one years of age or upwards, shall be enti¬ 
tled to enter upon and take any one-quarter section of the public lands which maybe open 
to entry at private sale, for the purposes of residence and cultivation; and that when such 
citizen shall have resided on the same land for three years, and cultivated the same, or if 
dyin°: in the meantime, the residence and cultivation shall be held and carried on by his 
widow or his heirs, or devisees, for the space of full three years from and after making 
entry of such land, such residence and cultivation for the said three years to be completed 
within four years from the time of such entry, then a patent to issue for the same to the 
person making entry, if living, or otherwise to his heirs or devisees, as the case may 
require: Provided, nevertheless, that such person so entering and taking the quarter section 
as aforesaid shall not have, nor shall his devisees or heirs have, any power to alienate such 
land nor create any title thereto in law or equity, by deed, transfer, lease, or any other 
conveyance except by devise by will.” 

In the discussion of the resolution on the 30th of the same month, 
the principle received the sanction of Gen. Cass, in the following 
words: 

“ I desire to say but a word on this subject. I am glad to witness these preparatory 
discussions. They bring up a great principle—a principle to which I am highly favor¬ 
able.” * * * “I believe it would be better for the country that those who cultivate 

the lands should be those who hold them. I believe that the time has come, and that this 
country is now in a situation, when it is best to hold out this encouragement, and that is 
what I call the‘age of progress,’in reply to the honorable Senator from Kentucky. 
When I saw him come here in 1806, in the meridian of his life, I did not dream that this 
age of progress would come; but I hope it has come now; I hope the time has arrived in 
which the public domain will be held for the benefit of those who will become actual 
settlers.” 

Mr. Chairman, the unexampled growth and prosperity of our 
country is traceable, in a great measure, not only to our vast agri¬ 
cultural productions, but to the fact that the free white population 
of the United States is an approximation to a community of land¬ 
holders. The Government of Great Britain, of which, prior to 
1776, we were dependent colonies, traces its power to a mighty 
landed aristocracy, representing one of the legislative departments 
of the Government—a power far above that of the Army and Navy, 
if not above the Throne, for it shapes the policy and controls the 
legislative action of Parliament. There, the rights of primogeniture 
are adhered to with stubborn tenacity. It seems to be the policy 
of the Crown to build up immense landed estates. In the United 


12 

States, we have practiced upon the reverse of such a policy. We 
have qualified the right of primogeniture, and repudiated the doc¬ 
trine of entailment. The fruits of our wisdom are visible in every 
State and in every community. In Great Britain, the Government 
relies for its protection upon the power of the Army, the Navy, and 
the House of Lords, representing the landed interest of the King¬ 
dom. In the United States, we rely for our success and preserva¬ 
tion upon the virtue, intelligence, and patriotism of the people. 

In Great Britain, the population in 1851, including Ireland and 
the islands in the British seas, was 27,619,866. The number of 
landholders only about 30,000. 

In the United States and Territories, the free white population, by 
the last census, was 19,630,738. The number of landholders— 
the owners of farms—was 1,448,486 ; add to this the number 
of freeholders as contradistinguished from farm owners, being 
930,997, and it would increase the number to 2,379,483, distributed 
as follows: 


States and Territories. 

Free white 
population. 

No. of land¬ 
holders. 

Maine. 

KQ 1 

46 760 

New Hampshire. 

jOOO 
Ol 7 AQ Q 

29,229 
29 765 

Vermont. 

Ol 4 *7 

Q 1 q Hi 

Massachusetts... 

OIOJTII 

qw^ 701 

34 235 

Rhode Island. 

144,000 

o£.*o qnc 

5*385 
22 445 

Connecticut. 

New York. 

000,0130 
q fMQ 467 

170 691 

New Jersey... 

OjU ( 

466 940 

1 (0,04 1 

23 905 

Pennsylvania. 

*100,4*113 
9 968 463 

197 677 


1 Q36 108 

14/ ,0 / / 

1 43 887 

Indiana. .. 

1,300,1130 
Q77 098 

l*iO,oo / 
03 806 

Illinois. 

J / / ,040 
840 104 

00,000 
76 208 

Michigan. 

0*10, 1 13*1 

qQ 6 0Q7 

34 fl 8 Q 

Wisconsin..... 

000,03 1 
304 666 

o*l, Uo3 
90 1 77 

Iowa. 

0134,000 
1Q1 87Q 

40,1/( 

1 4 80*i 

California... 

103 900 

14,000 

108 

Delaware. 

100,400 

71 289 

1UO 

6 063 

Maryland. 

418 6 on 

0 ,U 00 
91 860 

Virginia. 

11 o,o3U 
8 Q 6 304 

41 ,0013 

77 013 

North Carolina. 

030,001 

663 9Q6 

66 Q16 

South Carolina... 

000,400 

274 623 

00,3 i o 
9Q Q6Q 

Georgia. 

521 438 

43,303 
61 76Q 

Alabama... 

426 507 

01,/ 03 
41 Q64 

Mississippi. 

295 J58 
255 416 

41,304 
33 Q60 

Louisiana. 

00 ,3 01J 

13,424 

70 71 n 

Tennessee. 

756*893 

701 088 

Kentucky. 

7/1 777 

Missouri. 

4 Ol jDOO 

*go 077 

4 T,4 4 4 

54,458 

17 7CO 

Arkansas. 


Florida. 

47 167 

1 4 ,4 OO 

A 041/1 

Texas. 

i*u inn 

10 1 QQ 

District of Columbia. 

±0*± 3 J l/U 

38,027 

6,038 

61,530 

13,087 

11,330 

lOO 

ORA 

Territory of Minnesota. 

157 

Territory of New Mexico... 

o 7^n 

Territory of Oregon. 

Oj 4 OU 

1,164 

Q96 

Territory of Utah... 



Total...... 

in nnn 7ns 

1 AAQ AQR 




















































13 

Let us, then, Mr. Chairman, pass this bill, which wall necessarily 
increase the number, and at the same time strengthen the arm of 
the Government. 

Love of country and love of land is a natural association. It ex¬ 
isted in a primitive condition of society. Under the organization of 
government and the forms of society, the desire for acquisition is 
still greater; and when attained, it enables its possessor to discharge 
more fully the duties of life—to contribute his part for the support 
ol his country in time of peace, whilst it nerves his arm in the hour 
of battle. Patrick Henry, whose patriotism and matchless eloquence 
put in motion the ball of the Revolution, was ardent in the acquisi¬ 
tion of land, and at one time even contemplated a location of the 
shores of the Chesapeake. Washington, the Father of his Country, 
who led our armies in triumph through the battles of the Revolu¬ 
tion, was equally ardent in the acquisition of land. Even before 
the Revolution he found no barrier in the Alleghanies to his enter¬ 
prising spirit, and at that early day, in the district which I have the 
honor to represent, he made a location and an improvement, which 
is now often referred to with interest, because, when the dark forest 
marked it as the wild hunting-ground of the Indian, it had received 
the impress of the Father of his Country. 

The area of the public domain, instead of having diminished in 
proportion to settlement, the increase of population, and of immigra¬ 
tion, has increased almost without limit, by purchase and by con¬ 
quest. We have an immense extent unsettled and uncultivated; 
and under the best legislation we can adopt, a great deal of it must 
remain unsettled and uncultivated for ages—it may be for centuries. 

The number of acres of public land unsold and undisposed of in 
the twelve States of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, 
Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and 
Florida, is 200,000,000—equal in area to the old thirteen States that 
carried us triumphantly through the Revolution. 

The area of the lands remaining undisposed of in the Territories 
is 1,201,123,557.S5 acres, sufficient in extent to makeforty-two States 
of the size of Pennsylvania. Of this, much is possessed by the In¬ 
dians, and will be for many years to come; but all of it eventually 
will become the property of the United States, from the certain 
operation of the same causes which seem to doom the Indian race 
to ultimate extinction—a result to be deplored, but which seems to 
be inevitable. They have already so far disappeared before the 
advances of civilization, until their homes are now far beyond the 
angry waters of the Mississippi; and as they travel towards the 
setting sun, the council-fire will gradually disappear in the gorges 
of the mountain, and the war-whoop finally be lost in the murmurs 
of the great Pacific ocean. 

In this vast region there are certainly large districts that are 
mountainous, parts of which are unfit for improvement, and for the 
residence of man; but, after making all necessary deductions on 
this account, there will yet remain immense districts which will sup- 


14 

port a dense population, and sooner or later will be converted to the 
great purposes of civilization and production. What is to be done 
with this vast region, that it maybe converted from an uncultivated 
wilderness to its natural purpose, and made to bring forth its fruits 
abundantly? Pass this bill—encourage and secure its settle¬ 
ment. 

This Government was founded by the people for the good of the 
people. Its great basis is popular affection. It possesses an im¬ 
mense property which it cannot sell, but by a process equal in time 
to a period of centuries. Compare the number of acres sold up to 
this date and the length of time (sixty-four years) that has been con¬ 
sumed in making the sales, with the number of acres now undis¬ 
posed of, and it will be seen that it will require, at the same pace, 
nine hundred years to dispose of the same. The progressive spirit 
of the age is impatient of the delay, and demands a quickened step. 
Vast forests and prairies separate our Atlantic and Pacific regions, 
which every consideration of security and of intercourse require 
should be settled. Its settlement would place upon a distant fron¬ 
tier a force able and willing to defend us against hostile savages, and 
thus spare us much of the expense we are now required to defray. 
It would be justice to the new States in which portions of the pub¬ 
lic lands are situated, by converting them into private property, 
subjecting them to taxation, and thus requiring them to bear their 
legitimate proportion of the burdens of State government. 

With all of our unexampled prosperity, Mr. Chairman, in the arts 
and sciences, in the progress of improvement, in the extent of our 
commerce, in the growth and success of our manufactures, in wealth 
and in power, it is nevertheless true that there is great inequality in 
the condition of life, and that much can be done to ameliorate that 
condition without doing injustice or violence to the rights of any. 
There is no Government that has so much to spare as ours, and none 
where the gift would be productive alike of mutual benefit. It 
would be the exhibition of a union of philanthropy and national in¬ 
terest, consummating a measure by which worthy citizens would 
be made comfortable, not by wasting the property of the State, not 
by exactions from the property of others, but by moderate grants of 
wild land, the cultivation of which would swell the productive prop¬ 
erty of the country, and thus contribute its proportion to the common 
necessities, in peace and in war. 

No inconsiderable portion of our population is enabled, for the 
want of means, to push forward to the frontier, and there form 
settlements. Desirous of doing so, it requires an expenditure they 
cannot meet. All that many of them can do, is to reach the country 
and provide for their support, until the land, improved by their labor, 
becomes productive. To require them to pay beyond that for the 
land, amounts to prohibition against their going there. The pre¬ 
emption system stimulated emigration and settlement; but expe¬ 
rience has shown, that inability to pay the Government for the title 
after a period of severe trials incident to such new settlement, 


15 

gave the land, in many instances, into the clutch of the speculator, 
and drove the hardy pioneer again to the forest. 

Certainty and reliability are words full of import and value in the 
American language. The certainty of being secure in a small 
possession—a home —even on the extreme confines of civilization, 
would nerve the heart of many an honest man of limited means 
to make the effort to secure it. Pass this bill and it will provide 
homes, and happy ones, for a vast number of meritorious persons, 
and teach them the value of a Government which desires to fulfill 
the first of its duties: that of promoting the happiness and prosperity 
of its citizens. 

What a useful lesson would such a plan prove to the Govern¬ 
ments of Europe; and what an example would it furnish of repub¬ 
lican care for the good of all, thus promoted by our happy institu¬ 
tions. It would present a spectacle at which the patriot, in the 
full exultation of his heart, might rejoice—at which the honorable 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Andrew Johnson] might rejoice— 
as Lycurgus did when returning through the fields just reaped, 
after the generous provision that he had made for the citizens of 
Sparta and Laconia; and seeing the shocks standing parallel and 
equal, he smiled, and said to some that were by, “How like is 
Laconia to an estate newly divided among many brothers.” 

The American Government is the great pioneer in the cause of 
freedom. By the force of republican principles and of unexampled 
success, it has advanced in nationality until it is now hailed as 
a beacon-light for every continent, and a star of hope for every 
people. With a population of but three millions, at the close of 
the Revolution, we now have twenty-three millions; with but 
thirteen States, we now have thirty-one; and territory enough for 
fifty more—a Union stretching across a continent from one great 
ocean to the other. All that is wanted to develop its great resour¬ 
ces and fulfill its destiny, is a population commensurate with the 
fertility of its soil and the extent of its territory. 



HON. JOHN 


DAWSON, 

I \ 1 


OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


OK 


# 

THE HOMESTEAD BILL, 


DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON TUESDAY 

FEBRUARY 14, 1854. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY ROBERT ARMSTRONG. 

1854. 






























# • 




• 






* 






. 






























1 " 








SPEECH. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Olds in the 
chair,) and having under consideration the bill (No. 37) reported from the Committee on Agri¬ 
culture by Mr. Dawson, “ to encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Manufactures, and all other 
branches of industry, by granting to every man who is the head of a family and a citizen of the 
United States, a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of land, out of the public domain* 
upon condition of occupancy and cultivation of the same for a certain specified period 

Mr. DAWSON addressed the House as follows: 


Mi;. Chairman : The disposition of the public domain, and especially 
in the mode suggested and provided for in the bill now under consid¬ 
eration, and commonly known as the “ Homestead bill,” involves a 
policy of vast importance, and which, I trust, will receive the full de¬ 
liberation as well as the favorable action of this House. Whether con¬ 
sidered with reference to the change which it proposes in our land 
policy, to its effects in developing the resources of the nation, or to the 


upon a large class of our fellow- 


tr little more in the way of argu¬ 
te honor of before advancing in 


benefits which it proposes to confer 
citizens, who yet merit this treatment at our hands, there is none to 
which the proposition contained in this) bill yields in importance. 

I propose, upon this occasion, to of 
ment and illustration to what I had 

this place upon the subject under consideration. But I confess to an 
interest in the principles of this bill and their enactment into law* 
which is paramount, I will venture to/say, to every other which, at the 
present session, is at all likely to engageour attention. The persuasion 
that it is a measure of great public iriterest; the consciousness that, as 
a legislative body, we possess the power of benefiting, to an incalcula¬ 
ble extent, both physically and morally, and for generations yet to come* 
a large class of our fellow-men ; whib, at the same time, the nation at 

a still greater degree, both so- 
iwaken in us the patriotic desire 
^rted. An enlarged and liberal 
a common country and a com¬ 
all too loud for denial, for the 
wholesome and just. The deep 
measure, I feel in its success, is 


n 


large is strengthened and improved 
cially and as a State, is sufficient to 
that this power may be speedily exl 
view of the varied interests of society 
mon destiriy, invoke us with a voice 
establishment of a measure at once so 
interest which, in these aspects of the 
the cause of my again pressing it upon your consideration. 

That we may proceed more intelligently in the further discussion of 
the subject, it may be expedient to advert briefly to the state in which 
it was left by the debates of the last 
I would notice the objections which, 


session. And, in the first place, 
dth such indefatigable diligence 


this 


and research, and such pre-eminent ability, it has been attacked both in 

~ apitol. If those able objectors 
* rejecting this measure, it can 
passage are irresistible and over- 


House and the other wing of the 


have not shown conclusive reasons 
only be because the reasons for its 
whelming. 

The objections have been as various as the local interests, real or 
imagined, which, with a policy much too narrow for the question, they 
have been so pertinaciously urged, while the great opposing argument has 




4 


been based upon an anxious avowal of regard for the integrity and pu- 
rity of the constitution. 

While the language of the constitution, in the third section of the 
fourth article, is plain and explicit in its grant of power over the whole 
subject of the public domain, we think it right to regard the conditions 
imposed by the deeds of cession from the States of Massachusetts, Con¬ 
necticut, New York, and South Carolina, as abrogated by this* full grant 
of power. If embraced at all in the term engagements in another 
clause, by which it is sought to restrain this power, it surely can have 
no application to those cessions, as in the case of North Carolina and 
Georgia, made after the adoption of the A dera.1 compact, and those im¬ 
measurably greater tracts of territory embraced in the purchase of 
Louisiana from France, under the treaty of 1803, and of the Floridas 
from Spain, under the treaty of 1819, and the immense regions of Cal¬ 
ifornia and New Mexico, acquired py the triumph of our arms—by the 
blood of the patriot, and the common treasure of the country. To ob¬ 
tain a uniform rule of construction, then, with reference to the whole of 
the public domain, it is as unphilosophical as unnecessary to look fur¬ 
ther than this grant of the constitution, which is plenary over the whole 
subject. 

But, admitting the binding force of the deeds of cession to the full 
extent claimed for them by those who make them the ground of their 
opposition, and what is the requirement imposed by those unyielding 
conditions? It is, in substance, that the proceeds of the ceded terri¬ 
tories shall be applied for the “general welfare,” and thus the whole 
question is resolved into one of expediency. 

It has been alleged that these lands are all pledged to the creditors 
of the government, and that we have no right to diminish their security. 
That although they have reimbursed the value paid for them, and the 
expenses of survey and management, and have returned during the 
half century past a net proceed to the treasury of more than fifty mil¬ 
lions of dollars, the lands are still encumbered with the various liens of 
the government creditors. A heavy national debt of more than fifty- 
six millions of dollars, it is said, hangs over us, besides other millions 
to claimants for French spoliations, which we impair our resources to 
meet, by granting the public lands in limited quantities to actual settlers. 

These, and the construction cf a vast naval power, and most ex¬ 
pensive system of coast defences, have been held up as the legitimate 
sinks for all the proceeds of these lands for all time to come. But in 
opposition to this view, it can be shown that with a treasury overflow¬ 
ing—$15,514,589 75 of the nafonal debt anticipated and redeemed 
since the 4th of March last—$7,391,708 20 of which at a premium of 
21 per cent., and an accumulated surplus on the 8th of February 
instant, subject to draft, of $25,029,046 29 still in the national exchequer, 
the proceeds of the customs afford the most ample security to the pub¬ 
lic creditor. 

But, sir, the great argument so long urged, and with such pretence 
of reason, that the creditors of the government would, by such a 
measure as this, lose the main security for their loans, has, by the ex¬ 
tinction of the debt of the Revolution, for the discharge of which they 
were specially pledged by the deeds of cession, lost all its point and 


K* 

o 


vigor. And if we still have some millions of public debt, all of recent 
origin, who now seriously thinks of this in comparison with the variety 
and extent of our financial resources as offering an obstacle to expendi¬ 
ture, for whatever purpose sought? 

But granting, for the sake of argument, that ajj the claims just men¬ 
tioned are worthy of our attention, it can be very easily shown that we 
do not, by the passage of this bill, impair our ability to meet those de¬ 
mands. It requires but little observation to know that land in the 
wilderness, or in an unsettled or unimproved locality, acquires value 
just in proportion as that locality may be dotted with settlements and 
improvements. Suppose, then, that of the nine millions of quarter-sec¬ 
tions which the government owns, exclusive of that in California and 
l\cw Mexico, one million of alternate quarter-sections shall be occupied 
by actual settlers within the next ten or twenty years under the opera¬ 
tion of this bill, then it is not at all extravagant to calculate that in the 
same space of time the million of intervening quarter-sections will be 
at least doubled in value; so that by the time the government is dis¬ 
posed to sell, her landed resources will be the same as before. This 
assumption has sustained the policy and formed the basis upon which 
Congress, by numerous grants, has givp, for the construction of canals, 
railroads, internal improvements, and the improvement of navigable 
streams, 18,553,700 acres, while the aggregate donations and grants in 
the several States and Territories up to the 30th June, 1853, amounts 
to 129,195,983.* * * * § 

* Statement oj donations, grants, &;c., of public lams in the several States and Territories up to 

the 30 th June j 1853. 


States and Terri¬ 
tories. 


Ohio. 

Indiana. 

Tliinois. 

Missouri. 

Alabama. 

Mississippi. 

Louisiana. 

Michigan. 

Arkansas. 

Florida. 

Iowa. 

Wisconsin....... 

C.ilifornia. 

Minnesota Ter... 

Oregon. 

New Mexico. 

Utah. 

Northwest. 

Nebraska. 

Indian... 


— P 


C V 
.2 'i vT 

3 


727,528 
673.35“ 
1,001,795 
1,222,179 
925,814 
860.624 
832,124 
1,113,477 
932,540 
954,583 
951,224 
1,004,728 
6,765,404 
5,089,244 
12,186,987 
7,493,120 
6,681,707 


« 3 

o .2 
~ >. 

IK 

ft. C3 

<£ -a 


o 


3 

o 


3 

3 

-3 


o 


21,949 


2,09. 

20,924 


1,243,001! 
1,609,861; 
500.000 
500 ; 000 , 
500,000 
500,000* 
500,0001 
1,250,000 
500,000 
500,000 
f1,385,078; 
929,736 
500,000 . 

+340.000 . 

T ' 1 


32,141 
843 
954 


•73 »^} 

Sj 3 

o t n 

. s tI - 
■5 2® 
j £ 2 

3 3, js 

i 5 


2 

3 

3 

ft. 

a 


.[2,56 

1,981 1,62 
15,965 ’ ™ 
8,412 

4'080 3,200 
139,356 10,600 


52.114 

18,226 

5,705 


2.560 

2.560 
5601 

20 ! 
1,280 


6,210 

3,840 

6,400 


1,771,263 
1,200,656 
8; 745,930 
2,131,963 
'740,084 
155.383 
507,470 
946,803 
1,627,433 
272,519 
4,284,173 
2.360,93“ 


(? 

Sc 


3 m 
“ o 


3 

if 

aj 


97,360 


ec 

•3 


3 


2,595,053 
2,442,240 
230,400 
549,120 


§25.640 
§1,286.827 
‘,833,412 
§2,178,716 
§2,595 
.1,824,812 
.9,771,275 
.6,788,124 
§8,690,016 
62,065,605 

§71,958. 

||1,2,59,269 . 

No estimat e or report. 


2,189,200 


o 


3,799,575 
4,774.106 
14,679,706 
8,477,658 
2,424,445 
3,907,184 
11,619,282 
10,115,685 
14,091,253 
3,871,986 
6,714,500 
5,566,775 
7,265,404 
5,526,604 
12,186,987 
7,493,120 
6,681,707 


Totals, 


f 


49,416,435 *44,971 10,757,677, 279,792 


50,860 24,841,97935,798,254 


8,006,013| 129,195,983 


Note —Fractional parts are omitted in some of the abote columns, but are aggregated in the totals. 

* Not finally closed. 

f Includes the estimated quantity of 560,000 acres of the lies Moines river grant, situated in this State between 
the Racoon Fork and source of said river. 

| Is the estimated quantity of 340,000 acres of the Des Moines river grant, situate in this Territory as above. 

§ Reported by State authorities. 

II Estimated. 












































































6 


But, sir, it was also shown at the last session, with a fullness of de¬ 
tail which renders it unnecessary that I should dwell upon it now, that, 
with a view of enhancing the general receipts into the treasury, by 
stimulating production and extending the basis of our national com¬ 
merce, the ability o£ the government, under our present revenue 
system of thirty per cent., to meet all the expenditures warranted by a 
just administration, would be largely increased; and, to that end, the 
scheme proposed is the very best which could be adopted. It has 
been argued, again, that the passage of such a measure will tend, in 
its operation, to the injury of investments already made in agriculture, 
by reducing the price of improved lands, and by over-production. I 
believe that such fears are entirely groundless. The number of persons 
who could avail themselves of the benefits of thjs bill are too few in 
comparison, and their effort to do sp would be too gradual, to produce 
any marked effect of the kind apprehended. The cultivated lands of 
the old States are too remote froin the wild lands of the West and 
■South to feel the effect of the competition. It may be added, too, that 
in the frontier settlements some years elapse before the production ex¬ 
ceeds the consumption. An additional and forcible answer to the* 
objection is to be found in the geographical position of the old States— 
their contiguity and approximation to the seaboard—their accumulated 
wealth, and the energy with which they are constantly opening new 
avenues of communication, affording a quick and convenient transit for 
all kinds of agricultural products. The history of the times, our ex¬ 
tended and extending commerce, with the condition of the markets, 
and the high prices which every species of agricultural production 
commands, is an illustration of this truth. 

The year 1847 was distinguished as the “famine year,” and for high 
prices. Since then, and up to the 30th of June, 1853, the government 
has disposed of for cash, and in grants to the States of swamp lands for 
schools, for railroads, for bounty lands actually located, 114,746,000 
acres of the public lands, five per cent, of which, it may be assumed, 
has been brought under cultivation; and, with a tenfold increased fa¬ 
cility of reaching the seaboard, prices are largely maintained, agricul¬ 
ture is eminently prosperous, anc: the price of improved lands every¬ 
where advancing. 

It is contended, indeed, that instead of being a bill for the encourage¬ 
ment of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, as it proposes, this 
would be more truly denominated a bill for the destruction of all those 
great interests. It is said that the people are the best judges of their 
own interests, and that inducements held out to interfere with the reg¬ 
ular course of industry, or to divert it from its old channels, are founded 
on false notions of political economy, and fraught with evil. Agricul¬ 
ture will suffer, manufactures will suffer, by an abstraction of labor 
from their respective pursuits. We trust to have shown the unreasona¬ 
bleness of the objection as regards the first of these* nterests. Let us 
consider a moment how stands the case with the others. 

Manufactures, it is to be remembered, are carried on chiefly in the 
thickly-populated districts of the country, and especially in the large 
cities, where there is a numerous population that have no regular means 
of procuring their daily bread. It is very apparent that the with- 


7 


drawal of a large class of the laboring population from these pursuits 
will only make room for another class still more needy. It was never, 
for a moment, supposed that such persons would be enabled immedi¬ 
ately to settle in crowds on the public lands. It is enough if the door of 
hope be thrown open to them; enough that from the degradation of 
social inequality a pathway may be afforded them to a higher and 
better condition. Such hopes, I believe* will be presented by the grad¬ 
ual withdrawal of those amorfg the laboring classes who, having the 
means and the inclination, betake themselves to an agricultural life, 
and by the consequent demand for new persons to fill the places of 
those who have left. Nor can it be said that such an effect would be 
but temporary, and that the evils which were for the moment removed 
by the operation of this measure wiuld presently return with in¬ 
creased malignity. Make this bill yjur permanent policy, and the 
social system having once been corrected and strengthened by its 
working, will, from a continuance ofuhe cause, be likely to be kept 
so. 

But while it will be no worse for tie manufacturing interest while 
this change is taking place, it will certiinly tend greatly to the advan¬ 
tage of that interest when the change hall have been once completed. 
This, because with every additional settler upon the public lands, 
springs up, of course, an additional d< mand for the products of manu¬ 
factures. 

But whatever benefits the agricultu] al and manufacturing interests 
must, in a corresponding degree, assis; those of commerce, which is 
only the agent for distributing the prolucts of both the others. And 
thus it would seem, at last, that the trne character of this measure wa$ 
not inaptly proclaimed by its title. I 

To proceed, however, to a more specific detail of the general objec¬ 
tion, let me first observe, by the wayVthat if we may suppose that the 
momentary effects of the bill were lostile to the interests just men¬ 
tioned, would it not be as just that cautal should feel that momentary 
inconvenience, as that labor—industry —should forever struggle against 
a disadvantage not self-induced, but m incident of that inequality of 
condition which is the result of all hr nan society hitherto, and effected 
in many cases, it may be, by an unecual system of legislation? Allow 
me to say, that if this bill be, as som( would allege, a bonus from capi¬ 
tal to labor, it is one which she can 1 rell afford to make, and which 
will be returned with a satisfactory i terest. 

But it has been urged, again, thit this bill embodies a mistaken 
policy with reference to its beneficia ies. It is said you cannot force 
men into any pursuit against their iiclination or natural fitness for it; 
that most of the persons whom suci a measure as this might be ex¬ 
pected to benefit are unfit, both physically and by education, or pre¬ 
vious pursuits, for tilling the earth. ! n support of this view, we are re¬ 
ferred to the case of the British soldier who were donated lands on the 
St. John’s river, in New Brunswick, and which shows, it is thought, by 
its present thriftless condition, the abs lrdity of attempting by bounties to 
make valuable cultivators.of the soil But the example is surely un¬ 
fortunate for the cause of the objectois. Because a regiment of British 
soldiers—a class of people everywhere averse to all civil pursuits— 






8 


presented with a small strip of land in an inhospitable valley of the 
Northeast, and under monarchical institutions, fail, as an experiment, 
therefore it is futile and ridiculous, by conferring lands upon actual 
settlers in the United States, allowing them unrestricted liberty of 
choice through almost twenty degrees of latitude, and with the most 
genial climate, and institutions the most desirable ever established in 
any nation, to hope for a better result! I apprehend that but little 
force will accompany such reasoning to the minds of Americans. A 
similar two-fold application has that maxim which we have frequently, 
in the course of the debate upon the bill, heard urged with confidence 
as conclusive against its provisions. We are told that we cannot do 
indirectly what we cannot do directly; that as it is only indirectly 
that this measure can pretend to benefit the great interests ol the 
country, that, therefore, this objection is fatal to its pretensions. This 
sort of view seems, with some gentlemen, to apply well enough when 
the public lands are under consideration; but its point seems quite for¬ 
gotten when the question is concerning the benefits which the system of 
high duties confers upon the industry of the country; though if it do so 
at all, it must be indirectly. No one can doubt that the protective 
policy takes money from the consumer; whether it afterwards restores 
more than it takes, is another question. 

Another objection to this measure is the effect which it is expected 
to have in reducing not only the price of lands in the old States, but of 
all the grants heretofore made in the new States, whether for eleemosy¬ 
nary or educational purposes ; for internal improvements, or as military 
bounty lands. What with such ostentatious benevolence, it is said, 
you bestow with one hand, in entire recklessness of good faith, you 
with the other retract. The old soldier, instead of being presented 
with bread, will find that he has received nothing but a “stone.” This 
would indeed prove a formidable objection, if were anything more than 
what might be supposed to present itself at the first blush of the subject, 
but which a very little reflection might well be supposed to dissipate. 
But for one feature of the bill, indeed, the force of the objection could not 
well be gainsaid. With the restriction, however, that the public lands 
shall be occupied by actual settlers only in alternate quarter-sections, 
we believe the interests of former recipients of the public bounty will 
enjoy ample protection. By the grants of alternate sections to rail¬ 
roads, and by similar grants of quarter-sections to actual settlers now 
proposed, there is still the sane quantity of lands which cannot be 
settled under the operation of either class of grants reserved to the 
government. All these alternate sections of the government, which by 
the construction of public improvements, and by those of actual 
settlers, will be speedily and greatly enhanced in value, can only be 
purchased at high prices at public sale, or else taken up by land war¬ 
rants. This liability to absorption by land warrants it is which must 
forever prevent the depreciation of the latter; for itls by means of them 
alone that lands which will often be worth several times the govern¬ 
ment price of $1 25 per acre, can be obtained only at the market value 
of the warrant. So, also, everywhere in the vicinity of these settle¬ 
ments in the new States and the Territories the value of improved lands 
will naturally increase. It is not merely the fact of getting the land for 


9 


nothing which is going to tempt multitudes into the wilderness. The 
superior advantages in point of education and physical comfort will 
weigh with many who possess the means to stop short among populous 
communities. It is not every one who wishes, any more than he is 
capacitated, to enter into a struggle with the primitive forests and the 
prairie wilds. 

Other objections to the bill in its present shape are, the restraint im¬ 
posed by the second section upon alienation, the condition of five years’ 
residence before the occupant can receive a title to the land, and the 
exempting of it from sale for debts contracted previous to the settle¬ 
ment. All such restrictions, it has been urged, are against the whole 
policy of our laws, and most. unwise.} It is expected, too, that when 
the Territories are erected into States, these conditions imposed by the' 
general government will interfere or conflict with the local laws, and 
also that they will tend to create a perpetuity of the same kind as the 
English system of entails. We have been told, that where the grantor 
parts with his whole interest in the grant, it is contrary to the rule of 
the common law* that he should at the. same time be permitted, in any 
wise, to tie up the hands of the grantee;)and that from the right of Con¬ 
gress, taking it in its fullest latitude, toiiispose of the public territory, 
the right of disposing of it, so contraw to our common law' system, 
cannot reasonably be inferred. But what does this restriction amount 
to? Why, merely that for five years the settler shall not receive his 
title. In accordance with the great object which she has steadily pur¬ 
sued from the beginning, the government makes him a grant of land 
upon condition of settlement, and only exacts that it shall be a bona 
fide settlement, by making five years’,rpidence and cultivation the evi¬ 
dence of this. Is such a restriction, so manifestly for the benefit of the 
public as of the individual, inconsistent with the policy of the common 
law? And the condition which prevents the land from coming under 
legal sale for any debt contracted [revious to the reception of the 


patent for the land—is there anything 
settler to start clear of incumbrances, 
cases, paralyze his efforts to improve 
by this kindly provision of his goverr 
But—as regards the position that 
nexed are unknown to our law—what 
sion themselves which have been so 
in connexion with this subject, and by 

Did those deeds not part with 
the whole interest of the grantors in tlose lands, and yet was it not ac¬ 
companied with the condition that the 
be applied for the “ general welfare ?’ 
rule,«it appears that these much moots 


: nore in this than the enabling the 
vhich would otherwise, in many 
is condition, even though aided 
lent? 

grants with such conditions an- 
let us ask, are the deeds of ces- 
nluch in the mouths of gentlemen 
hich the old States ceded their 


w 


proceeds of those lands should 
Then, by the operation of this 
d conditions are at last invalid, 
and that the grants from the States ifiure to the general government 
unincumbered with conditions. 

It is urged, however, that by thus retaining a ^ontrol over these 
lands after they shall have become S-ate property, and liable to State 
taxation, a conflict between the State and general government may be 
anticipated. And yet, by the ordinance of 1787, by which an immense 
territory was converted into States, the general government still retains 




10 


in these States large bodies of public lands, over which its control ex- 
tends; but where is the conflict of laws and jurisdiction apprehended? 

Another objection to the policy of this bill is one,which proposes to 
substitute in lieu thereof an extension of the present pre-emption prin¬ 
ciple. Instead of calling into existence a community of freemen, it 
proposes to establish a great government tenantry—a system of per- - 
petual vassalage. The most odious feature of the feudal system, and 
that which is the most repugnant to all our institutions, is thus sought 
to be incorporated into our system of administering the public lands; 
and the settler is thus to become the perpetual tenant of his govern¬ 
ment. Of a proposition which has so little to commend it to the 
popular judgment, I do not intend to consume your time in the discus¬ 
sion. I would only remark that, if put forth in seriousness as the great 
measure which the occasion demands, it seems founded upon a strange 
oversight of the motives and principles by which men are commonly 
governed. The love of property Is one of the strongest principles of 
the human breast, and the prospect of its acquisition is the most potent 
stimulus to industry and all the homely virtues which it is possible 
to supply. Take away this stimulus, as you do by your perpetual 
pre-emption, and you, to the same extent, remove the inducement to 
settlement. Make payment, although distant, a requisite to acquiring 
the title, and you deaden to a fatal degree the desire and the effort to 
do so. The very relation of such a vassalage is derogatory in the 
eyes of an American citizen, however humble. At an early day in the 
Senate, Colonel Benton pronounced the true character of tenantry, 
when he declared that “ tenantry is unfavorable to freedom. It lays 
the foundation for separate orders in society, annihilates the love of 
country, and weakens the spirit of independence. The tenant has, in 
fact, no country, no hearth, no domestic altar, no household god.” 

The prejudices of the people are against every such policy; and 
you will never, by any such provision, foster that manly independence 
which attaches to the absolute proprietor even of a few humble acres. 
It is said that the pre-emption principle is preferable, as placing it out 
of the power of the settler to injure himself, as well as of the speculator 
to reap the benefits of his industry. But what! has it come to this? 
Has the American pioneer lost his character of thrifty shrewdness, and 
must needs have a guardian assigned for his protection ? Sir, let us 
have more respect for this adventurous and noble class of our fellow- 
citizens. 

But a greater objection than any we have yet mentioned, and one 
more calculated to oppress the measure with odium, is that which 
stigmatizes it as agrarian. But how agrarian ? It is not proposed by 
this bill to rob any man of a particle of his property. It does not pro¬ 
pose a limit to the quantity o r land which any man may owfl; but 
simply that the unoccupied public lands—at least such portion of them 
as is deemed expedient—may be taken by whomsoever, under the 
provisions of the^bill, will incur the labor of reducing them under 
cultivation. And, although such a disposition of them may be regarded 
as a gift, yet the sacrifices, privations, and actual toils which must 
be necessarily undergone for this purpose, are in fact no small price 




11 


for the settler to pay. If there be agrarianism in this bill, it is of 
that kind which levels up, and not that which levels down . It is of 
that kind which every philosopher and patriot, from Confucius and 
Plato down to Sir Thomas Moore, and Hobbes, and Harrington, 
and Sidney, and Locke, in their fervid dreams of love for their race, 
have longed and labored to see established among men. Unlike the 
distribution proposed by the Licinian law, which fixed the quantity of 
land which should be held by any individual—unlike that division of 
the conquered lands among the Roman soldiery of Augustus’ time, 
whose harsh effects upon the extruded tenants is so pathetically 
alluded to in the song of Virgil—the distribution proposed by this bill 
is only of lands which are without occupants, a large part of which are 
still in the distant wilderness, and which, since the dawn of creation, 
have been sacred to the wild denizens of the forest—here and there 
dotted with the path of the Indian warrior, and were never yet torn by 
the crooked plough. 

So far, Mr. Chairman, we have spoken only of the objections to the 
passage of this bill. The principal of these we have endeavored to 
state with candor, and to treat with respect, for they have been urged 
with masterly ability and perseverancejin both wings of this Capitol. 
Justly distinguished as are the gentlemenKvbo oppose this measure, they 
only remind us, by their course, of those early navigators who forever 
timidly hung around the coasts of the Mediterranean and the west of 
Europe, afraid to launch boldly upon the broad ocean, which, in return 
for their trustfulness, was ready to beaffl- them to the shores of a new 
world. With similar apprehensions, tHese dialectic mariners see no 
lands beyond Lake Erie or the Mississippi, or—wrapped up like Ras- 
selas in the Happy Valley—they cannot lift their glances beyond the 
Alleghanies or the waters of the Ohio! so closely do these politicians 
steer to the old system of managing the p iblic lands, against the opinions 
and practice of the most conservative aid yet democratic of our states¬ 
men—of Jackson, of Benton, of Cass, if Douglas, of Walker, and of 
Andrew Johnson. Like intellectual glad ators, they waste in encounters 
of skill the strength and adroitness whic h would honorably distinguish 
them in the service of the State. In a spirit too conservative for the 
times, they seem unwilling to realize ths t in the great valley east of the 
Mississippi, and far beyond its angry vaters, towards the base of the 
great mountain, the sun is shining high in the heavens, and that man, 
in his mission of subduing and civilizin r the earth, is hastening to and 
fro, in all directions, wiijji the hurried tramp of armies marching to 
battle. 

But let us glance at the positive consid ^rations in favor of this measure. 
I think it may be assumed as conclusive, that by multiplying individual 
interests, this bill will furnish us the i urest and strongest guarantee 
against agrarianism. Agrarianism, in the bad sense in which it has 
been charged, if it mean anything, met ns taking property from those 
who have it and distributing it among those who have none. But do 
not the objectors see that the more yoti multiply individual interests, 
however small, the more effectually you increase the number of those 
who are opposed to measures of levelling distribution? 

It was the conviction of Mr. Jefferson, from his observations in Europe, 
that the laws of primogeniture and entail tended to an accumulation in 



12 

a few hands of all the landed property of the kingdom, and to an entire 
separation of the tenant from the soil, which consequently destroyed the 
bond of attachment to the government. Hence his policy of repudiating 
all such partial provisions ; and in every production which subsequently 
fell from his pen—from the charter of our liberties through all his 
messages and correspondence—his care for equality of rights shines 
conspicuous. A strong government was not less his care than that of 
his federal compatriots; but he sought for that strength, not in investing 
a privileged few with force to control the masses, but by a system 
founded upon principles of justice and equality, and resting firmly in 
the affections of the people. 

So far, then, from being levelling in its tendency, it is a measure the 
best calculated possible to create a great conservative interest of every¬ 
thing valuable in our institutions, Social and political. By this bill, if 
you pass it, you call into existence a great community of freeholders, 
each one sovereign within the limits of his domain, and, as regards the 
security of his political and civil rights, as the Chief Magistrate of the 
country. Who is interested in upholding the government and institu¬ 
tions of the country, if they, the holders of the soil, be not ? If you wish 
to increase the safeguards of the nation—its ability to repel external 
aggression as well as preserve internal order—you must increase the 
number of freehold homes. What was the exhortation so common in 
the mouths of the Roman generals when addressing their countrymen 
on the eve of battle against an invading foe? It was, “ Fight for your 
altars and }~our firesides.” This measure, therefore, is best as regards 
the defences of the country; for, unlike the sea-girt isles of the British 
realm, the defences of this magnificent land are not so much in her 
“wooden walls” or her fortifications; these are, indeed, great and 
important; but insignificant in comparison with that which is furnished 
by the living ramparts of our hardy yeomanry and laboring population. 
They it is which are the life-blood of the nation—who twice resisted 
successfully the disciplined armies of England—who recently planted 
the flag of their country in triumph upon the walls of the far-distant and 
ancient-renowned city of the Montezumas, and who are ever ready to 
present an impregnable front to every foreign assault. 

But, sir, the measure has been proven best as regards the revenue of 
the country. I will take occasion to remind my auditors that, in a 
speech which I had the honor to make from this place at the last ses¬ 
sion, it was shown that the increase of agricultural productions conse¬ 
quent upon the settlement, under this bill, of one million of freeholders, 
and the consequent extension of our commerce, will add annually to the 
national revenue seven times the annual average receipts of the govern¬ 
ment from the public lands since the first acre was sold. It was also 
shown in the course of the discussion of this measure, that it would be 
the best policy towards the twelve States which have public lands within 
their limits, by converting them into private property—subjecting them 
to taxation—and thus securing from them a legitimate attribution to 
the burdens of State government. 

But the distribution of the public lands which the measure proposes, 
strikes me as in the highest degree equitable towards the old States, 
for by it we provide for all the States exactly in proportion to the num- 


18 


her of the needy and enterprising within their limits. As this popula¬ 
tion is the most numerous in the old States, they are, in this point of 
view, the greatest participators in its bounty ; and is it any objection to 
this view that the immediate beneficiaries of the measures should be 
that large—yet in many respects meritorious—class of our fellow-citizens 
who are borne down by the ever-increasing distance between wealth 
and poverty in our old communities ?—a class who, without much hope 
of elevating their condition, struggle helplessly and hopelessly there : 
and who, though numerous in all the States, stand in special need of 
the liberal aid of a paternal government in those crowded communi¬ 
ties where population presses upon subsistence. 

Is this objected to as partial and class legislation? And have we 
had none such hitherto ? Has there ever been a measure adopted by 
Congress, by which money was to be distributed among the commu¬ 
nity—be it for internal improvements, for erecting light-houses, coast 
defence's, or public structures—that it did not inure to your proprietors, 
your contractors, and men of substance—to those who had something— 
and not, as the benefits proposed by this bill, to those chiefly who have 
nothing? We all know how much has been done by direct legislation 
for the benefit of capital. For whom directly, but to capitalists, do 
\ 7 our innumerable corporations and yom protective tariffs yield their 
benefits? True, these benefits may gi indirectly to labor. Let us 
grant that it is so; still, wLere will you find a single enactment for the 
benefit of labor directly, and especially of that class whose whole capi¬ 
tal is labor ? 

In close connexion with the topic of Itenefiting the land States, I will 
merely refer to the policy which has been illustrated with such ability 
and success during the last two sessions of Congress in approval of 
railroad grants—the manifest tendency pf such grants to fulfil the object 
of the whole land policy of the government—namely, the settlement of 
the public domain, and its erection into States ; and I Can assert, with 
confidence, that not an argument was u ged in behalf of those measures 
which does not apply with triple force o the bill under consideration. 

Reasons scarcely less forcible than ary we have presented, in favor 
of this change proposed in our land pol: ;y, may be derived from a con¬ 
sideration of some features of the presei t system. Among these, it has 
been shrewdly questioned whether the benefits of the policy- of pre¬ 
emptions, under existing laws, are not nore for the speculator than the 
settler; in other words, to favor the cap talist at the expense of the man 
of small means. The latter first settl s upon his tract, and bestows 
his labor with energy and skill in redicing it under cultivation; and 
after a series of trials, incident to a fro itier settlement, he fails for the 
want of means to pay the governmen; for the title, loses his twelve 
months’ privilege of purchase, and is C impelled to linger out a servile 
existence as a tenant, or pitch his tent still further West, in a feeble 
struggle for a home. What, again, is tie operation of the public sales? 
Are they the media of transferring the lands to actual settlers and cul¬ 
tivators ? On the contrary, is it not notoriously the fact, that the lands, 
on such occasions, pass chiefly into the hands of capitalists, who hold 
them for an advance in price from the 'cultivator, who at length must 
have them for tillage? Is there not crying injustice in this; and is 





14 

there no obligation resting upon us, as legislators, to strike from our 
policy a stigma so opprobrious ? 

Not less objectionable is the working of the bounty land laws. Par¬ 
tial and defective as these provisions must be admitted to be in their 
character, they are equally so in their practical application—either the 
bounty itself to expire within a certain time, or upon certain contingen¬ 
cies, or the individuals who are to.be its recipients designated with 
little regard to equity. The rules and regulations which the Depart¬ 
ment of the Interior, as the custodian of the public property, has felt 
itself bound to adopt, operate, in many cases, with unmitigated hard¬ 
ship. I am informed, that of the applications for the benefit of these 
laws a large proportion have either been rejected altogether, or remain 
suspended for want of evidence to bring them within the several acts. 
Doubtless many fraudulent attempts have been made in this way to get 
possession of the public territory ;) but how many cases have failed of 
allowance for want of proof of one or two days’ service more than the 
Auditor gives from the rolls, or of a few days’ travel? Then, again, 
how many kinds of service, just as meritorious as any included in the 
law of September 28, 1850, of March, 1852, or any of the previous 
acts, have been omitted to be .provided for?—veteran frontiersmen, 
who fought with St. Clair and Wayne; volunteers who have done coast 
duty, and minute men—those whose service was divided between the 
sea and the shore—those who were engaged in the suppression of Burr’s 
conspiracy, in the French disturbances prior to 1800, and "the flotilla 
men in the war of 1812. I do not pretend that I give a complete enu¬ 
meration, but it is sufficient to show the limited and unequal character 
of the present provison. It is true the Indian warriors of 1793-’4 are 
allowed to prove services, but in most cases this provision is a mock¬ 
ery, and merely nugatory, and the aged patriots who defended the 
Northwest, as well as the “dark and bloody ground,” long standing upon 
the threshold of the grave, drop away one by one, uncheered by any 
return for their sacrifices and services by a grateful country. 

These, sir, are great hardships. The working of these laws must 
be allowed to be very partial and unjust; and I believe that the mea¬ 
sure which is now proposed is the only one which will fully embrace 
all cases intended to be provided for by these acts—that it will effect¬ 
ually cure the difficulty, and silence complaint throughout the land. 
In addition to all we have urged in behalf of this measure, I would also 
allude, though only in passing, to the consideration, that the foundation 
of the most extensive and available civilization is the cultivation of the 
soil. Nothing else can enable a nation to subsist so large a number. 
The most populous empire upon the face of the globe, it is well known, 
and which supports one third of the human race—I mean the empire 
of China—is that in which the culture of the soil is the most extensive. 
And let us not forget that, in the opinion of the greatest people of an¬ 
tiquity—I mean the Romans—it was the only pursuit worthy of a free¬ 
man. An opinion, this, which was illustrated in the lives of Cincin- 
natus, Dentatus, and Fabricius. 

In behalf of this measure, other arguments of force, no way inferior, 
rise to our reflections. It was most aptly said, by Sir William Black- 
stone, of the common law—which is the perfection of reason—that it 



15 


resembles the human skin, fitting alike the new-born infant and the full- 
grown man. Something in the nature of the common law as applied 
to government is the spirit and policy of our republican system; 
and as this system is itself an experiment, successful so far, as it was 
original and bold, yet still an experiment, it should be administered 
with a policy in harmony with its origin. 

I he policy of territorial grants to individuals, with a view to settle¬ 
ment and cultivation, is by no means first announced in the measure 
before us. Such grants have, in fact, been almost coeval with the dis¬ 
covery of America, and have been made upon a scale of magnitude, 
and with an absoluteness of control to the grantee, which, from sover¬ 
eigns of three centuries ago, may well challenge our admiration. It 
was in 1497—only five years after the keel of Columbus’s little vessel 
first grated upon the shores of the Bahamas—that Henry VII granted 
to John Cabot a patent for territory containing, as the historian says, 
“the worst features of colonial monopoly and commercial restrictions.” 
In 1512, to Ponce de Leon, the companion of Columbus in his second 
voyage, and the discoverer of Florida, was granted, by Charles V, the 
government of that country, “with the onerous condition that he should 
colonize the country which he was appointed to rule.” Similar grants 
were afterwards made by the French aid Spanish sovereigns, and by 
almost every monarch of England dowi to the time of the revolution 
of 1G88. The names of Fernando de I Soto, De Monts, Sir Humphrey 
Gilbert, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir George Calvert, *Endicott, Winthrop, 
and others of the Plymouth company, fir Ferdinand Gorges, and Cap¬ 
tain Smith, in connexion with these grants, recur to our memories with 
something of chivalric interest. 

But if any force is supposed to exifet in example, it will be found 
that the practice of governments upon which we are accustomed to 
look down as inferior, has been upon principles far more liberal than 
our own. The lands of Canada have long been offered as a free gift 
to all who choose to occupy them. Sc it was in Mexico, until she lost 
Texas. So it was, and perhaps still is in the West Indies, and in all 
the Spanish republics of the Western Continent; and, with strange 
inconsistency, we behold the nation wlich boasts the most enlightened 
government under the sun, the only ons, from Hudson’s Bay to Terra 
del Fuego, which refuses a free home tp the settler. 

But equal liberality, in this particuar, was exhibited even in des¬ 
potic Asia. It was the King of Persir who, through his ambassador 
at London, issued, some thirty years ago, a proclamation offering to all 
who should emigrate to Persia gratuitoi s grants of land, for the declared 
purpose of improving his country. 

Time forbids me, at present, from examining these grants in detail, 
but those of principal importance will form a portion of my printed 
remarks;* and it will be found, on tracing them with particularity, that 


* Abstract of colonial grants. 

1497. Henry VII granted to John Cabot, a Bristol merchant, (from Venice,) a patent for 
territory, “ containing the worst features of colonial monopoly and commercial restriction.” 

1498. A new patent granted by Henry to John Cabot and his son Sebastian, a native of 
Bristol. 






16 


the settlement of the country is the leading idea in all. So this were bat 
likely to be accomplished, powers and privileges the most arbitrary 
and unlimited were freely conferred upon the favored object of the 
royal bounty. 


3512. To Ponce de Leon, the companion of Columbus in his second voyage, and the dis¬ 
coverer of Florida, the government of that country, “icith the onerous condition that fie should 
colonize the country which he was appointed to rule." 

1528. To Pamphilo de Narvaez, Florida, as far west as the river of Palma. 

1538. To Fernando de Soto, by Charles V, “ the government of the isle of Cuba, with abso¬ 
lute power over the immense territory to which the name of Florida, was still vaguely 
applied.” 

1579. Sir Humphrey Gilbert obtained from Queen Elizabeth a patent, 11 conferring on him¬ 
self or his assigns the soil which he might discover, and the sole jurisdiction, both civil and 
criminal, of the territory within two hundred leagues of the settlement to be formed.” 

1583. Sir Walter Raleigh received a patent almost in the same terms as his step-brother, 
Gilbert. 

1600. “A monopoly of the fur trade, within ample patent, was obtained in 1600 by Chauvin 
and Pontgravct a merchant of St. Malo,” from Henry IV. 

1604. The sovereignty of Acadia and its confines, from the 40th to the 46th degree of 
latitude—that is, from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal, with a patent of ample extent—was 
issued by Henry IV, exclusively to the able, patriotic, and honest De Monts. He had “ a 
still wider monopoly of the fur trade, the exclusive control of the soil, government, and trade, 
and freedom of religion for Huguenot emigrants.” 

1606. The grant by James I to a company of noblemen, gentlemen, and merchants of Lon¬ 
don, of whom the prominent names were Chief Justice Popham, Sir Ferdinand Gorges, and 
Sir Richard Hakluyt. This company had an exclusive right to occupy the region from 34° to 
38° of north latitude, or from Cape Fear to the southern limit of Maryland. 

At the same time, to another company of west-of-England men, consisting of knights, gen¬ 
tlemen, and merchants. Of these the leading spirits were Sir Bartholomew Gosnold, Edward 
Maria Wingfield, and the renowned Captain Smith. The right of this company was equally 
exclusive to the territory between 41° and 45°. The historian remarks that this was the first 
written charter of a permanent American colony. 

1620. The patent issued by King Janies to forty of his subjects, conferring on the pat entees 
in absolute property, with unlimited jurisdiction, the sole powers of legislation, &c., and ex¬ 
tending “ in breadth from the 40th to the 48th degree of north latitude, and in length from 
the Atlantic to the Pacific—that is, nearly all the inhabited British possessions to the north 
of the United States; all New England, New York, half of New Jersey, very nearly all of 
Pennsylvania, and the whole of the country to the west of these States— comprising, and at 
the time believed to comprise, much more than a million of square miles, and capable of sus¬ 
taining more than tico hundred millions of inhabitants, icerc, by a single signature of King James, 
given away to a corporation within the realm composed of but forty individuals." 

“ This patent to the Plymouth company, in the American annals, and even in the history of 
the world, has but one parallel. The grant was absolute and exclusive: it conceded the land 
and islands, the rivers and the harbors, the mines and fisheries.” 

1621. John Mason obtained from the council of Plymouth a grant of lands between Salem 
river and the furthest head of the Merrhaac 

1622. Sir Ferdinand Gorges and Mason took a patent for Laconia, the whole country be¬ 
tween the sea, the St. Lawrence, the Merrimac, and the Kennebec. 

1629. The royal charter to the Massachusetts Bay Company, confirming to them the country 
“from three miles south of the river Charles and the Massachusetts Bay, to three miles north 
of the river Merrimac.” 

1621, (about.) The Dutch West India Company, incorporated by the States General, and 
invested with the exclusive privilege to traffic and plant colonies on the coast of Africa, from 
the Tropic of Cancer to the Cape of Good Hope; “ on the coast of America, from the Straits 
of Magellan to the remotest north.” They had absolute power over such countries as they 
might conquer and colonize, subject to the approval of the States General. The result of 
this grant was the settlement in the United States of the New Netherlands—a term which 
designated the country from the southern shore of Delaware Bay to New Holland or Capo 
Cod. This is the era of the permanent settlement of New York, or, as at first called, New 
Amsterdam. 

1632. The grant of the country between the fortieth parallel of latitude, the meridian of the 
western source of the Potomac, that river to its mouth, and the Atlantic ocean, to Sir George 
Calvert, (Lord Baltimore.) “ This territory was given to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and as¬ 
signs, as to its absolute lord and proprietary, to be holden by the tenure of fealty only”—a 




17 


Now, the important practical conclusion suggested by a reference to 
these grants is most clearly and positively in favor of the policy of this 
bill. Can it be said that those chartered grants, whose recipients were 
made the repositaries of such enormous and irresponsible powers, have 
failed of their object? Is it not rather to them—made, as they often 
were, at the caprice of the monarch, and burdened with imperfections, 
and in spite of the sometimes arbitrary and oppressive character of 
the proprietaries—that we trace that national and individual prosperity 
of which we have everywhere such positive indications to-day, and 
which renders us the envy of an admiring world? If, then, the abso¬ 
lute control, with unimportant reservations, over boundless territories,, 
may be granted to one or a few subjects, it may well be asked, shall a 
republic be less liberal towards its citizens by denying a few acres to 
individual enterprise? Must, then, a single individual, with a kingly 
charter, be regarded as a better almoner of the public lands than a 
government springing from and administered for the people? Or is 
the tenant who holds of a lordly proprietor more likely to bring under 
prosperous culture his qualified estate,’ than the absolute owner and 
settler his little domain ? A policy which has been productive of such 
vast results in our colonial history, and [which we have shown so well 


as soon obtained for it the most unprece- 


and Seal, Lord Brooke, John Hampden, 
i’orn the 30th degree of north latitude 


colony established on such principles of moderation 
dented success. 

1633, (about.) The grant of the valley of the Con ecticut to the Earl of Warwick as pro¬ 
prietary, subsequently assigned by him to Lords 8a) ; 
and others. 

The grant of the Province of Carolina, extending 
to the river San Matheo, to Lord Clarendon'and others. These proprietaries, in contempt 
of the claims of Spain and Virginia, assorted their right to the territory thus indicated. 

1639. Gorges obtained, by royal charter, the titli of lord proprietary of the territory since 
known as the State of Maine. 

1665. Lord Clarendon and others obtained a newlcharter for Carolina, which granted them 
all the lands lying between 29° and 36° 36' north latitude—a territory extending seven and a 
half degrees from north to south, and more than forty degrees from east to w T est—comprising'- 
all the territory of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, Arkansas, much of Florida and Missouri, icarly all of Texas, and a large portion of 
Mexico. 

1681. The patent for the territory of Pennsylvani, was confirmed to William Penn, as ab¬ 
solute proprietary, by King James II. 


Extract from a decree of the Republic oj 


“ The Senate and House of Representatives of tin 
considering— 

“ 1. That a population numerous and proportion! te to the territory of a State, is the basis 
of its property and true greatness; 

“2. That the fertility of the soil, the salubrity of the climate, the extensive unappropriated 
lands, and the free institutions of the republic, permit and require a numerous emigration of 
useful and laboring strangers, who, by improving th sir own fortunes, may augment the reve¬ 
nues of the nation; have decreed— 

“ That foreigners emigrating to Colombia shall receive gratuitous donations of land, in par¬ 
cels of two hundred fanegas [about four hundred acres] to each family.” 


Colombia, dated June, 1823. 

republic of Colombia, united in Congress, 


Proclamation of the King of Persia, through his ambassador, dated London, July 8, 1823. 

“ Mirza Mahomed Saul, Ambassador to England, in the name and by the authority of Abbas 
Mirza, King of Persia, offers to those who shall emigrate to Persia, gratuitous grants of land,, 
good for the production of wheat, barley, rice, cotton, and fruits, free from taxes and contri¬ 
butions of any kind, and with the free enjoyment of their religion; the King's object being tc>‘ 
improve his country 









18 


adapted to our condition and circumstances, can involve no sacrifice to 
the government. 

The public domain, instead of being a blessing to the government, 
is in reality an incumbrance to it. It is even now the apple of discord, 
influencing, and in a measure controlling, the legislation of Congress. 
Schemes are being constantly projected to get possession of, and to 
absorb the public territory; while the ingenuity and combination em¬ 
ployed with the same object, in regard to the public revenue, are 
beyond the limits of calculation. The application now before Con¬ 
gress to confer upon the participants in the war of 1812, the Mexican 
war, and the various wars since 1790, without regard to length or char - 
acter of service, 160 acres of land, would require, as appears from a 
statement which I recently obtained from the Department of the Inte¬ 
rior, an additional issue of 574,811 warrants, and the quantity of land 
necessary to satisfy them would bq 83,209,760 acres—an area equal to 
that of the six New England States, together with that of New York, 
New Jersey, and Maryland. 

An economical government can never be found with an overflowing 
-treasury. They are inconsistent, both in element and practice. Strong 
governments—monarchical governments—rely upon bayonets as well 
as concentrated political power, and treasures wrung from the industry 
of the patient but oppressed masses. Republics rest upon the intelli¬ 
gence and purity of public opinion. By their theory no more money 
should be raised by taxation than is necessary for the adequate but 
economical administration of the government. Then wherefore col¬ 
lect revenue from the needy to distribute among the opuleilt ? 

Gen. Jackson, in his annual message to Congress in 1832, stated: 

“ It cannot be doubted that the speedy settlement of these lands constitute the true inter- 
<ests of the republic. The wealth and strength of a country are its population; and the best 
part of the population are the cultivators of the soil. Independent farmers are everywhere 
the basis of society, and true friends of liberty. It seems to me to be our true poliey, that 
file public lands shall cease as soon as practicable to be a source of revenue.” 

A similar policy to that which regulates our public domain was that 
which long existed in regard to the crown lands of Great Britain, and 
which one of the wisest of British statesmen was the means of ex¬ 
ploding. Edmund Burke, in speaking before the British Parliament 
m support of his bill for the alienation of those lands, declared: 

•* It is thus I would dispose of the unprofitable landed estates of the crown— throw 
them into the mass of 'private property —by which they will come, through the course of eireu- 
Jation, and through the political secretions, into well-regulated revenue.” 

I will further remark that, by the late message of General Pierce, it 
appears that, at the close of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1852, 
there remained a balance in the treasury of $14,632,136, and that “the 
public revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1853, amounted to 
$61,337,574, while the public expenditures for the same period, exclu¬ 
sive of payments on account of the public debt, amounted to $43,554,262; 
leaving a balance of $32,425,447 of receipts over expenditures.’’ 

It is evident, from this exhibit, that no moment more favorable for 
the introduction of the policy suggested by General Jackson can be 
•expected to occur than the present. During the eight years of his ad¬ 
ministration, the aggregate expenditures, exclusive of the amount paid 
£he public debt, was but $145,792,767 30, being an average of 


19 


$18,224,095 91 per year. The receipts for the same period, Ifom all 
sources, amounted to $252,061,370 85 ; while the aggregate expendi¬ 
tures during the four years’ administration of General Taylor and Mr. 
Fillmore, exclusive of the amount paid on the public debt, reached the 
enormous sum of $165,150,156 95, being an average of $41,287,539 23 
per year. The population of the United States, at the census taken 
during the administration of General Jackson, was 12,866,020, while 
that taken during the administration of Mr. Fillmore was 23,191,876. 
Mark the disparity in expenditure, as compared with the increase of 
population. 

But a greater and more important point of view, than any from which 
we have yet regarded the proposition of freehold homes, is that which 
contemplates them as the most effectual safeguards against disunion. 
I know, sir, we are in the habit of passing over this topic with a light¬ 
ness which indicates how little we anticipate such a result or dread its 
dangers. But I prefer, sir, to respect the wisdom of the founders of 
the republic, who looked with no small apprehension to dangers from 
“ anarchy among the members.” Without a doubt, if ever this mag¬ 
nificent temple of free government is destined to be numbered among 
the faded glories of the past, it will be found, as in the case of the free 
States of old, that the dismemberment of the empire was the first grand 
stride towards its extinction in the night 1 of ruin. I prefer to consider 
it as the part of true statesmanship, in afll great measures of policy, to 
look possible, nay, even probable, dangers in the face. There is no 
change in human motives or character. Temptations to political ex¬ 
cesses, to attempts more or less direct upon the sovereignty of the States, 
exist the same now as in the days of Sylla, of Marius, and the Caesars. 
The race of such aspirants, nor yet of the Catalines and Cethegi, is 
by no means extinct. 

It is true there is nothing in our present condition to excite the slight¬ 
est alarm. The eye may sweep the political horizon without discovering 
so much as the little cloud—no larger thgn the prophet’s hand—signifi¬ 
cant of approaching danger. But what is the present in the existence 
of a nation? It is even as a day or a month in the life of man. And 
in seeking for the country and the institu ions of our affections, that per¬ 
petuity which is the object of our hopes, it is well to look ahead. Let 
us carry our vision forward only to the tlose of the next half century, 
when, in the impressive language of President Pierce, in his message, 
“thousands of persons who have alrealy arrived at maturity, and are 
now exercising the rights of freemen, wll close their eyes on the spec¬ 
tacle of more than one hundred millions of population, embraced within 
the majestic proportions of the American Union.” Can we say, with 
confidence, that there will be no danges then from the ambition, preju¬ 
dices, and conflicting interests which such a population is sure to en¬ 
gender, or in the ages which are to unfbld themselves after ? On the 
contrary, is it not the part of wisdori, while the vessel is still in the 
harbor, to fit her for the dangerous navigation of boisterous seas? While 
she is flying buoyantly before the genial breeze, and beneath beaming 
skies, is it not true seamanship to put her in trim to ride out the storm 
which she is sure to encounter ? 

Nor do we find less source of alarm when we advert to the circum- 



20 


stances which are apt to be prolific of such adventurers. So. long as 
be hardy and simple virtues of the early fathers endured, the integrity. 
>f the Roman Commonwealth was safe. It was only when, with an 
overcrowded population, with the progress of conquest luxury poured 
in with its corrupting influences, that laxity of principle seized upon all 
ranks of public men, and that the State was regarded as the lawful 
prey of intrigue and audacity. Of course the holders of such projects 
never avow them openly ; but when did corrupt ambition ever lack a 
pretext ? And though not forgetting in the parallel the notice of those 
superior influences wdiich Christianity imparts alike to the community 
and its public representatives, we cannot forget the usurpations of Crom¬ 
well, made in the name of religion itself. 

And now, sir, while professing myself, as I have done, a friend of 
progress in its best sense, and believing in the high destiny of our race 
as regards extension of territory and position among the nations of the 
earth—of which we are in the habit of boasting rather more than good 
taste would justify—still, in view] of our matchless progress in com¬ 
mercial prosperity, of the colossal strides we are making in wealth 
and luxury, with vice and corruption thronging in their train—in view, 

I say, of these significant facts in our condition, it strikes me as the 
first duty of statesmanship to foster and diffuse all those checks and 
influences which are calculated to counteract the corrupting tendencies 
of the age, and to guard against those special dangers to which, from 
our form of government as a confederacy of States, we are peculiarly 
exposed. 

No better corrective, in my judgment, of the tendencies to which, 
from our very excess of prosperity, we are prone; and no firmer bar¬ 
rier to the assaults of disunion can be found, than that which may be 
procured by increasing the number of freehold homes. We thus create 
an extensive interest, which, owing its existence to the general govern¬ 
ment, will, from the principle of self-preservation, as well as of grati¬ 
tude, natural to uncorrupted hearts, desire to preserve in its integrity, 
as well as purity and simplicity, that united sovereignty of whose signal 
munificence they have been made the recipients. 

Sir, it is the property of rural pursuits, while giving vigor and hard¬ 
iness to the body, to impart a like robustness to the mental and moral 
character. Honesty, simplicity of habits, industry, frugality, and pa¬ 
tience, are the noble and manly virtues of the cultivator of the soil. 
These it is which will serve to temper the luxurious excesses of com¬ 
mercial prosperity, and which will stand unshaken amid the waves of 
faction. 

But what, after all, is the great bonus bestowed by this measure, 
and which is to impoverish the nation? It has been already shown, 


21 


that of the thirteen hundred and sixty millions of acres* which the gov¬ 
ernment ownS, not more than one hundred and sixty millions would 
for several years come under the operation of this bill. Why, sir, if 
to this you add fifty millions, to aid in the construction of the Pacific 
railway, you have still eleven hundred and fifty millions for your 
public domain a territory fourteen times as large as the united tern- 
tory of England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, and sufficient in extent 
to make two hundred States of the size of Maryland, New Jersey, or 
New Hampshire 

In view, then, of the magnitude of this imperial possession, a large 
portion of which, without a change of policy, must remain a wilderness 
for centuries—of the mighty spirit of progress in science and art which 
characterizes the age, and preeminently distinguishes this happy land 
of ours; of the fact that all civilizing agencies are advancing in a geo¬ 
metrical ratio, so that that is done now in a single decade of years 
which centuries before could scarcely accomplish—with a view, too, 
to settling our vacant territory, of converting it from an uncultivated 
wilderness to its natural purpose, and building it up into States, by 
which the happiness of every part, as well as of the whole, is to be 
augmented—1 may be allowed to say, that no disposition of those lands 
would be so wise as that proposed in tfe bill under consideration. 

Sir, it is time we approach this question in a different humor from 
that of the school logician. We must cease to reason in a circle. We 
must abandon old and partial premises] which lead only to the conclu¬ 
sion that whatever is, is the best. Wejmust drop the character of the 
special pleader, and assume that of the legislator and the statesman. 
We must look for new premises in the altered condition of the times—in 
the progressive spirit of the age—which lead to new conclusions of 
faith in man’s capacity, and favorable to human improvement. 

Need I remind my auditors that we live at a period when new agen¬ 
cies have been pressed into human service in countless applications, 
extending, to an incalculable degree, oil* influence over matter ? That 
the steamboat, the steamship, the electric telegraph, and the railway— 
the multitudes of discoveries and improvements in the arts, and the 


* States and Territories. 

Area of acres unsold 
and unappropriated i 
of offered and unof- ! 
ered lands, June 30. 1 
1853. 

dates and Territories. 

Area of aeres unsold 
and unappropriated 
of offered and unof- 
ered lands, June 30, 
1853. 

Ohio ......_..._ 

244,196. 08 | 

Tnwa. 

22,773,175.57 
' 23,678,486.19 
113,682,436.00 
85,225,601.41 

Tnriiana___ . __ 

247,339. 41 

! Wisconsin __....... 

Illinois ......____ 

4,115,969.97 ! 
22,722,801.41 j 

1 California_..._ 

Missouri. 

Minnesota Territory... 

Alabama _ _ 

15, 049,693. 70 j 
9,083,655.94 

| Oregon Territory. 

206,349,333.00 
127,383,040. 00 

Mississippi. 

TiOnisiana __ 

! New Mexico Territory. 

9,134,143.81 

! Utah Territory. 

113,589,013. 00 

Michigan. 

16,142,293.48 ! 

| Northwest Territory .. 

338,384,000.00 

Arkansas. 

15,725,388.83 

! Nebraska Territory... 

87,488,000.00 

Florida. 

29,262, 674.59 

j 

1 Indian Territory. 

Total. 

119,789,440. 00 

1,360,070,681.89 



































22 


marvellous perfection of machinery—mark this as the most inventive 
age upon the records of our race—is a remark which lcfees its impres¬ 
sive significance only from the frequency with which we are compelled 
to utter it. Is it sought to compare the works of our times with those 
of antiquity ? Shall we place our canals, our railways, our telegraphs— 
crossing the land and the water alike, sending its flash across the 
English channel, and all but piercing the Atlantic; and on this side of 
the water extending from Halifax to New York, and from thence to the. 
Gulf of Mexico—shall we place these, with our suspension bridges, 
our tunnels, and our national monuments, by the side of those vast but 
unmeaning works, the pyramids, the wall of China, and the Lake of 
Moeris V Shall we even compare them with the great highways of the 
Roman empire—the Appian and Flaminian ways'? Nothing more is 
necessary to illustrate the immeasurable superiority of the works of the 
present era, when compared with that standard which is recognised as 
the guide for industry—namely, the promotion of human happiness— 
than the mention of these great works in juxtaposition. It is all one as 
if we should compare the Grecian triremes or the Roman galleys, with 
the complete and effective war steamer of our day, capable of stretch¬ 
ing a girdle of vapor around the earth in a quarter of its revolution 
around the sun, and in less time than either of the former would pass 
from Rome or Athens to the ports of the Euxine—all one as if we should 
compare the clumsiness and tardiness of their merchant ships with the 
well-appointed and manageable sailing craft of our mercantile marine. 

Sir, I was struck by a remark made b}^ the attorney general of the 
government in a recent speech made at Baltimore or Newark, when ac¬ 
companying, with his brethren of the cabinet, our honored chief ma¬ 
gistrate in his official visit to New York. “ Action,” said Mr. Cushing, 
“is the necessity of our age, and especially of the position, physical 
and political, which we hold among the nations of the earth.” This, 
sir, is most emphatically true; and the onward march of events will 
not permit us to stand still it we wish it. This appropriate and well 
uttered remark was made in reference to another great question with 
which the present has a most important connexion. I allude to the 
great Pacific railway. The value of such a highway to the commerce 
of the country and the world, I am glad to find, is thoroughly appre¬ 
ciated by our people. Suffer me to glance a moment at the great ends 
which are contemplated by the completion of that work. But, sir, I 
must dissent entirely from the conclusion of the argument drawn by the 
distinguished head of the War Department—from its necessity as a 
measure of defence to the country, except in connexion with the home¬ 
stead policy, which will carry .along the line of the road, and into the 
gorges of the mountain, a train of emigrants, of actual settlers, able 
and willing to protect it against hostile aggression. 

But I wish to look a moment at the great purpose which it is des¬ 
tined to subserve in facilitating the commerce of the world. It is by 
such a highway, indeed, that the disjointed members of our vast con¬ 
federacy—disjointed only by the intervention of a vast expanse of des¬ 
olate forest and prairie, which separate our Atlantic and Pacific re¬ 
gions—-are to be brought into close and easy proximity ; that the bar¬ 
rier of the Stony mountains is to be broken down, no longer to inter- 


23 


pose, by towering heights and inhospitable snows, an obstacle to inter¬ 
course ; but fhe dweller by the Aroostook, the Hudson, the Delaware, 
and the Potomac, may pass as readily and almost as quickly to his 
friends on the Sacramento and the San Joaquin as he can at this time 
to New Orleans, Mobile, or Pensacola. This alone will constitute it a 
mighty and magnificent achievement of scientific labor and skill. But 
still greater appears the magnitude of this enterprise when we reflect 
that it is to form the great avenue to the Oriental trade, and to make 
our continent the highway for the other grand divisions of the world. 
This work it is which^is to make San Francisco the New York of the 
Pacific—soon to vie with the queen of the Atlantic, but scarcely to sur¬ 
pass her. From these two points, as centers on either side, the com¬ 
mercial streams will radiate and be reflected back with increased in¬ 
tensity ; on the one hand, from the mother of our American races, and 
the home of the Moor and the African; and on the other, from the cradle 
of our first parents and the furthest isles of the sea, abounding with 
those rare and costly products which nature has distributed with so 
partial a hand, and overflowing with myriads of our fellow-beings. 
The value of the commerce of which we are thus to become the most 
favored recipients is no secret to the world. 

Upon this trade grew the greatnessj of Tyre and Sidon as commer¬ 
cial cities. Its peculiar commodities built up subsequent^ and in suc¬ 
cession the cities of Babylon, and Pahnyra, and Alexandria, and Con¬ 
stantinople, and Venice, and Genoa, »knd Antwerp, and Bruges, and 
Amsterdam, and, at this day, contributes its richest streams to the com¬ 
mercial greatness of London, and Paris, and New York. 

But, sir, the course and enriching character of the Oriental commerce 
have been traced with a particularity ,h which I cannot imitate here,) by 
one who, still in this branch of the legislature, has grown gray in the 
distinguished service of his country. I refer to the Senator from Mis¬ 
souri, whose enthusiasm upon this subject does him honor, and who, in 
his speeches upon it, has illustrated it jwith a flood of elegant learning, 
which he is ever ready to pour over every subject which he touches. 

If we do not immediately perceive |ie connexion which this project 
has with the measure chiefly under consideration, we have only to re¬ 
flect that the commerce of any country is limited by the amount of 
products which it has to give in exchange. Now, it is exactly the pro¬ 
ducts of,agriculture which are called for by the millions of the Chinese 
and Japan Empires—suffering from the evils of an overcrowded popu¬ 
lation ; and which the rapid means of transit afforded by this road, in 
connexion with the Pacific steamer, reaching the East from the West, 
will enable us to furnish them with Admirable promptness, and in the 
greatest abundance. In return, the (cultivator of the soil will receive 
a full and cheap supply of the now costly luxuries of China and India. 
The farmer will see, without alarm at the inroads of luxury, his wife 
and daughters comfortably arrayed in the silks and cashmeres of China 
and Thibet, and the teas of the Celestial empire will greet him with a 
freshness and a delicacy of flavor which he will scarcely recognise as 
of the same herb which, robbed of its best properties by a twelve 
months’ voyage, he yet knows how to prize. 

True it is that the spirit of the age is commercial, and that the ships 


24 


-of all civilized nations now meet in friendly rivalry upon every sea. 
The share of trade, however, which will fall to each nation is yet to 
be determined by the internal capacities and development of each. 
And allow me to say, that the effect upon production of the passage of 
this bill in connexion with that which shall provide for the construc¬ 
tion of the Pacific railway, will be great beyond the reach of prophecy 
to tell. What the opening of a great avenue into territory at that time 
unsettled will effect, has already been illustrated on a magnificent scale 
in the case of New York. The genius of De Witt Clinton projecting 
the Erie canal, to unite the waters of the Atlantic and Lake Erie, her 
extensive and dreary solitudes sprung at once into a populous empire. 

At the beginning of the present century New \ ork had a. population 
of but fifty thousand. That she now approaches in magnitude the city 
-of Paris, numbering more than seven hundred thousand souls, is to be 
attributed mainly to the development of her great internal resources, 
consequent upon the completion of the canal; and yet further since, by 
those triple bands of iron by which her eastern and western extremities 
have been bound together, and which have invited the trade (of the 
vast regions of the lakes and the northwest. Vain, would have been 
her efforts to build up a foreign trade without domestic products to 
exchange—without her iron, her salt, her agricultural products, and 
those of her factories and workshops; vain, without a numerous and 
still growing people to clothe with stuffs from foreign looms, and to 
suppty with foreign luxuries—with coffees and teas, and sugars and 
molasses; with wines, and brandies and spices ; with silks and cottons; 
with cutlery and crockery; with laces and jewelry; with linens and 
woollens. 

But what are the still extending lines of railway throughout the coun¬ 
try? What the canals, and the rivers ploughed by the steamboat, but 
illustrations of the happ} 7, effects of such works in opening up our domes¬ 
tic resoures, in calling into being new and happy rural communities, 
which react again upon the size of large cities, and altogether tend to 
swell the tide of the general prosperity? Doubtless the extent of pro¬ 
duction is greatly affected by the presence or absence of Government 
restrictions ; and it is apparent that this trade, as between England and 
America, has been increased largely in consequence of the repeal of 
the corn laws and the adoption of our revenue tariff in 1846, and that 
production has been immensely stimulated thereby. Great as is this 
trade and production, however, it only faintly foreshadows wliat would 
be the result if the policy now proposed in regard to the public lands 
were once adopted. 

The cultivation of the soil is a* natural pursuit, and it is a result of 
civilization, and the organization of Governments, that there must be 
an interchange of commercial commodities. The Almighty in his bound¬ 
less beneficence created man after his own image, filled him with do- 
sires, endowed him with reason—with an intellect almost approximat¬ 
ing to divinity itself—and fully designed that he should carry on a so¬ 
cial and commercial intercourse, coextensive with the planet he in¬ 
habits. For that purpose he created this globe with a variety of soil 
and a variety of climate; and connected it by rivers, seas, lakes, gulfs, 
and oceans, that there might be a full interchange of its varied com- 



25 


modities. He fully designed that the products of the valley of the Mis¬ 
sissippi should be exchanged for those of the Indus and the Ganges, as 
well as of the Thames and the Rhine. 

Commerce, then, is the ruling spirit of the age, and it is a wise and 
benignant spirit. What has so much tended to break down the preju¬ 
dices of nations, strangers to each other, as the freedom and frequency 
of commercial intercourse ? What is so liberal as commerce in diffusing 
the blessings of civilization, in building up cities, and in establishing and 
fostering religion? If in any age religion has been honored, science 
and learning have shone with a blaze of lustre, it has been when the 
commercial spirit was at its height. Was not commerce flourishing at its 
acme in the kingdom of Israel under Solomon, the wise king ? Did they 
not go hand in hand in the Augustan age of the Roman Empire ? Was 
not the same true of the Eastern empire at Byzantium, and among the 
“ merchant princes of Venice and Genoa?” And lastly, is it not pre¬ 
eminently true in this, the most commercial age the world has seen, 
that the Christian religion is the most extended and cherished, and that 
every influence of knowledge and learning favorable to human happi¬ 
ness, exists in a degree never before witnessed ? Sir, if we are wise, we 
shall have a reference to this spirit in our legislation. 

“ Commerce is king,” but his throne at least is supported by manu¬ 
factures and agriculture—chiefly the latter. Commerce, it is true, is 
the glorious efflorescence, the flower and fruit of*the tree of industry 
and labor, as applied to the soil and material products; and if the fruit 
be so excellent and desirable, how must we judge of the tree? Let us 
cultivate this tree with care. Let us water its roots and prune its 
branches, and we shall rear a plant which the axe of destiny shall 
glance harmlessly by; and beneath its branches the oppressed of all 
nations will find a shelter. 

I have already referred to the beneficent influence of commerce as 
the handmaid of religious and moral improvement. While the passage 
of this bill, by favoring commerce, will encourage this influence, it will 
do so in a still higher degree directly. Who that has studied human 
nature practically but will admit that, if you wish to elevate the intel¬ 
lectual and moral condition of a people,[you should first make them easy 
in their physical circumstances. Small, indeed, the success of those 
philanthropists and Christian missionaies who have labored for human 
improvement, while the people under their charge consumed their whole 
time in supplying their material wants. Once place it in their power, by 
regular and not overtasked industry, to procure for themselves the ne¬ 
cessaries and some of the comforts of subsistence, and then their higher 
and better natures at once begin to unfold. Then you furnish a fit field 
for the' teacher of science, literature, and religion. 

But however numerous and convincing the reasons in support of 
this measure, and however certain its success in the popular branch of 
the national legislature, it is apprehended by some that a fatal opposi¬ 
tion awaits it in the Senate. I cannot say, sir, that I am a sharer to 
any great extent in those apprehensions. It is true that in other coun¬ 
tries, and under very different forms of government, great measures of 
popular reform have been sometimes delayed in their passage by the 
action of the higher branch of* the legislature. The reader of English 


26 


history needs hardly to be reminded that, in its encroachments upon 
the privileges of Parliament, and upon the rights of the subject, the 
Throne was generally upheld by the House of Lords. It was the 
British House of Lords which, at the Revolution of 1688, hesitated 
against the clearly expressed will of the nation at the bill of rights 
and the act of settlement by which civil and religious liberty were 
accurately defined and forever guaranteed, and the descent of the 
crown directed in accordance with the national will. It was the same 
body which, for fifty years, waged a relentless hostility to the passage 
of the emancipation bill, to the reform bill in 1832, and to the repeal 
of the corn laws in 1846. It is true, that in each of those cases the 
Lords yielded, but only when they perceived resistance would be una¬ 
vailing, and perhaps prove their own political destruction. 

But very different from the British House of Lords, as well in origin 
as character, in responsibilities and sympathies, is the American Senate. 
Though representing in the Federal Congress the States in their sover¬ 
eign capacity, they are yet elected at short intervals by delegates im¬ 
mediately from the people. While their responsibility for the use 
of power, therefore, is ever to the people, their sympathies are eyer 
with them. As a co-ordinate branch of the national legislature, it is 
with pride and with pleasure that I acknowledge its respectability and 
dignity, its conservative character and importance. Sir, I believe the 
interests of the people are safe in its hands; and that on a question of 
such great importance as this—of such unquestionable policy, and 
which the popular voice has so unequivocally approved—it will never 
be found to continue a vain and fruitless opposition. 

Mr. Chairman, the friends of this measure must persevere; it is a 
great question, affecting the happiness of thousands who are now living, 
and of millions yet to come. They should remember that most of the 
great reforms which have been made in legislation have been effected 
slowly and against great opposition. Under conservative professions, 
and a timid distrust of the popular capacity for self-government, what 
a struggle was maintained against the enlargement of popular suffrage 
and representation in England within the recent memory of the present 
generation—a struggle which lasted for a period of forty years! What 
a struggle against the Catholic emancipation bill, and still more recently 
against the removal of the restrictions imposed by the corn laws, 
and by which the people were furnished with cheap bread! By the 
energy and liberality of Peel, Cobden, and Macaulay, this reform was 
effected ; and whilst the fruits of their bold and humane policy are now 
enjoyed at every humble English fireside, their names stand out in bold 
relief, and will shed imperishable lustre upon the records of the English 
Parliament. What a struggle was maintained in this country to defeat 
the incorporation of federal doctrines in the organization of the govern¬ 
ment, and subsequently against the schemes of the moneyed interests, 
in their efforts to uphold a great financial institution to control the 
currency and interfere with the legislation of the country! What pre¬ 
dictions of ruin, blight, and desolation to all the varied interests of our 
people to follow upon the destruction of that institution! What a 
struggle have we not all witnessed, against the union of capitalists to 
procure the prevalence of class legislation in the form of a high pro- 


27 

tective tariff! What resistance to the acquisition of territory since 
the formation of the Union and the adoption of the federal constitution, 
in 1789—to the purchase of Louisiana—of the Floridas—the annexation 
of Texas—the conquest of New Mexico and California, which com¬ 
pleted our march across the continent, from one great ocean to the other, 
and established the western line in the survey of an ocean-bound re¬ 
public ! 

In every one of these instances it has been seen that the popular 
mind has had sagacity enough to perceive the futility of the objections 
to the reforms proposed; that the spirit of the age, like the bounding 
spirit of youth, has laughed at all the timid apprehensions of the honest, 
though misjudging, advocates of the interests of capital to the exclusion 
of labor ; of the timid and contracted to the acquisition of territory; 
at the fears of the weak, and the schemes of the interested; and in 
every instance in which the change has been made, how genial and 
salutary have been the fruits of that change. How happy the results 
of the English reform bill and the repeal of the corn laws—the change 
from the United States bank to the independent treasury—the adoption 
of the revenue tariff; and now last, but not least, how fruitful in great 
and glorious results the passage of a bill which places upon the founda¬ 
tion of law an additional million of homesteads. 

What a spectacle do we present at this time! A republic, sprung 
from an aggregation of separate and sovereign communities, from 
colonies into States, and from States into a mighty nation, overshadow¬ 
ing a continent. The State which, in a peculiar and lofty sense, has 
established the liberty and equality of the individual, and exalted the 
diginity of human nature, it would seem, requires alone this crown¬ 
ing act of magnificent philanthropy fo complete the measure of her 
glory. 

Once more, then, Mr. Chairman, let us leave the images in our caves. 
Let us come forth into the open air. Let us not be afraid to lose sight 
of the headlands and beacon-lights of our native lands. Let us trust 
to the stars and the magnet, as our fathers did when they left the shores 
of Old England, and ventured out upon the billows of a broad yet 
doubtful ocean—at first casting thei^ anchor within the hospitable 
waters of the Chesapeake, and then again landing per chance upon 
the bleak and weather-beaten rock of Plymouth. Let us imitate in a 
measure their example. Let us muster on their courage; let us mingle 
philanthropy with national interest, and give liberty an additional foot¬ 
hold upon American soil; and my word for it, we shall yet make new 
discoveries in politics and legislation, not unworthy of the race which 
claims as ancestral memories the Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, the 
Declaration of Independence, and the Federal Compact. 

Mr. Chairman, in another quarter of a century, within easy reach of 
vision from this Capitol, that noble work, now rearing its shaft upon the 
banks of the Potomac, will have been completed, which will do honor 
alike to the matchless character which it is to commemorate and the 
patriotism of the present generation. That marble obelisk will have 
climbed the skies to its destined height—a marvel alike and a monu¬ 
ment. Every morning sun will see its shadow stretching far into the 
State of Virginia, and in his evening glow it will fall towards the 


28 


Chesapeake. To latest time that monument will stand as an index 
upon the great dial-plate of the globe; while its shadow, revolving 
with the annual march of the sun through the heavens, will mark the 
stages through which our country makes its progress in everything 
great, glorious, and noble. In the unequalled condition of things upon 
which, from its proud elevation, that monument shall then look down, 
I am deeply persuaded that no agency will have been found more 
operative in producing that state of affairs, no cause more general and 
effective of the universal prosperity of the country, than the disposition 
of the public lands now proposed by this bill. 






























































































. 

, 












































































































\ 







































































































I ■!■<*» 





* 






















3 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 

i 7 


OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


THE HOMESTEAD BILL. 


DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON TUESDAY, 

JANUARY 9,1855. 


WASHINGTON: 
PRINTED BY A. 0. P. NICHOLSON. 
1855. 

Goy 










SPEECH 


The House having under consideration the pending amendment to the graduation bill, 
granting one hundred and sixty acres of land to actual settlers— 

Mr. DAWSON addressed the House as follows : 

Mr. Speaker: Twice before the present occasion it has been my 
fortune, in a somewhat prominent sense, to be the advocate before you 
of the great subject to which I have again to ask your attention. The 
thanks of the country are eminently due to this honorable body for the 
reception hitherto bestowed upon this measure, and the warm supp y0r t 
which has here been extended to it. 1 am well aware that the signal 
favor which the homestead has met at your hands is in no degre e ow¬ 
ing to any merit in the advocacy of the bill, but solely to its 0 w T n in¬ 
trinsic excellence. It is yet appropriate to remark upon the ability and 
eloquence which the measure has heretofore elicited in its support from 
members of this House, by which its advantages have be'en illustrated 
to the mind of the country ; and to hope that the same P.rdor and una¬ 
nimity of sentiment which characterized your former action in regard 
to this subject, will be now once more manifested in its favor. 

It will be recollected, Mr. Speaker, that, at the last session of Con¬ 
gress, the bill commonly known as the homestead bill was sent to the 
Senate, sanctioned by the overwhelming decision of this House, and 
that the Senate, avoiding a direct vote on its provisions, adopted, in 
lieu of it, the substitute of Mr. Hunter. To that substitute there are 
many and grave objections, and it is now my purpose to seek a re-es- 
tablishment, with a few alterations, of the original bill. An examina¬ 
tion of the Senate’s substitute shows it to be a measure for the benefit 
of States, railroads, and speculators. Its adoption would be disastrous 
to the purity of legislation in the land States. Who does not know 
what a scramble would ensue in these States, amongst incorporated 
companies, to get possession of the lands of which that which has been 
carried on in Congress would be but a magnified reflection ? Who 
does not see the innumerable charters which, under the influence of log¬ 
rolling in the legislatures, would be brought forth to absord for railroad 
purposes all the lands in these States, to the utter exclusion of the set¬ 
tler; which would cause immense quantities of bonds to be spawned 
over the country, make the competition for money unparalleled, and in¬ 
crease the rates of interest to an unprecedented extent. The starting 
of so many immature and impracticable schemes, by creating a ficti- 
tious demand for labor and the necessaries of life, would be most per 
nicious in its influence. Little by little the gigantic bubble would con- 




4 


tinue to swell and glisten until it should burst, and bankruptcy, in its 
most stupendous form, be the sequel. This is no picture of fancy, but one 
with which the American public are in fact unfortunately too familiar. 

The provision of the substitute which professes to ingraft the home¬ 
stead principle, viz : the eighth section, is a mockery. It apparently 
allows every head of a family, or male person of the age of twenty-one 
years, to enter a quarter-section of unappropriated public lands, upon 
the condition of payment according to a graduated scale of twenty-five 
cents per acre. But whether the settler shall be able to take any ad¬ 
vantage at all of this provision, depends upon the adoption, or other¬ 
wise, by the States, of this provision of the Senate’s substitute ; since 
the States have the privilege, under another section, of acquiring the ab¬ 
solute. right to the public lands within their limits; and of disposing of 
them, and at such higher prices as their wisdom shall direct, thus su¬ 
perseding the claim of the settler entirely. It is, at all events, manifest, 
that this graduation feature is one for the benefit of capitalists. Its ef¬ 
fect will be to pass into the hands of such men millions of acres which 
will remain in a wilderness condition, it may be, for centuries, thus de¬ 
feating the settlement of the country, and tending to build up a landed 
aristocracy. It is in direct antagonism to the policy of Mr. Jefferson, of 
destroying the rights of primogeniture and entail, and the removal of 
all unjust restrictions which tend to tie up property beyond the reach 
of the cultivator. It will be an approximation, so far as the different 
genius of the two governments will allow, of the policy of the British 
govern merit, which has at length concentrated in the hands of some 
thirty thousand individuals, all the landed property of the kingdom. 

The reason for the policy of graduating and reducing the price of the 
public lands was in order that, by promoting large sales, the govern¬ 
ment might be better enabled to discharge the public debt; but with the 
extinguishment of all the old debt, an inconsiderable existing debt and 
an overflowing treasury, this reason has ceased. There being now no 
need of revenue from the lands, there should be a reversal of this poli¬ 
cy, and the lands so disposed of as best to protnote settlement, and thus 
subserve the general interests of the country. The revenue from the 
customs is already more than sufficient to support the government; and 
perhaps the greatest evils of our present political condition are those 
resulting from the struggles to get possessicm of the surplus of the treas¬ 
ury. The true policy of the country is a poor treasury and a rich people. 

I feel, Mr. Speaker, in once more approaching this question, that we 
have already exhausted upon it the resources of argument. I propose, 
at this time, only a few remarks, such as seem warranted by a review 
. of the whole question, by the light of the recent searching discussion 
which it has .undergone in the coordinate branch of the national legis¬ 
lature. So. far from sinking, in any degree, under the weight of that dis¬ 
cussion, I trust it is now apparent that at no time has this measure oc¬ 
cupied a stronger position before the country than at present. A combi¬ 
nation of untoward, circumstances, quite unconnected with the merits of 
the homestead, have, for a time, interfered to prevent its passage by 
the. Senate; but the “still small voice” of the people, speaking in the 
calm majesty of might and justice, is already rising above the jar of 
sectional .and partisan interests, and insisting upon the adoption into the 


5 


leg' 1 policy of the country of this, their favorite measure. Once more 
let discharge our duty towards it. Let us calmly place before our 
fellow-citizens the grounds upon which rest the justice and policy of the 
homestead, and give it the sanction of our decided approval; and we 
can afford to wait the subsidence of these elements of opposition, 
which, varied and conflicting in their nature, are destined to a brief du¬ 
ration. A persevering, earnest, and steady support, is what the coun¬ 
try looks for at our hands—is what she has a right to expect—and will 
finally enable us to prevail. 

It may be thought, indeed, by some, that the passage, at the late ses¬ 
sion, of the land graduation bill, has taken away much pretext for the 
further pressure of the homestead, and has accomplished all that could 
be desired or hoped for by the friends of that measure. Surely, nothing 
can be further from the truth. It may be admitted, indeed, that the 
enactment of that bill was advancing a step in the right direction; but 
how limited the benefits it confers in comparison with those sought by 
the measure under consideration. It is seen at once that, except as re¬ 
gards lands which have been ten years in market, the old land system 
remains unchanged by the graduation bill—a feature which renders it 
inapplicable to much of the land in the land States, and entirely so to 
that of the Territories. It is seen further, that as regards that class of 
lands which has been ten years in market, the reduction is only twen¬ 
ty-five cents an acre—a reduction which, as regards the class of set¬ 
tlers sought to be benefited by the provisions of the homestead, is quite 
too insignificant to be appreciated. The further reductions to seventy- 
five, fifty, twent} r -five, and twelve and a-half cents an acre—according 
as the lands have been fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, and thirty years in 
market—are still liable to the same objection. It is only when the lands 
have been thirty years subject to private entry, and, in consequence, are 
reduced to the minimum rate provided by the graduation bill, that the 
benefit becomes appreciable for that large class of settlers for whom the 
homestead bill was intended chiefly to provide. The conditions, how¬ 
ever, under which the public lands become reduced to the lowest rates, 
are such as to limit it to the smallest and most worthless portions of the 
lands in the States, and in the Territories it can have no application 
at all, and that, therefore, the great objects sought by the homestead 
remain still to be accomplished. 

Let us proceed, however, to notice the few objections which, in the 
scrutinizing analysis which the subject has recently undergone in the 
other wing of the Capitol, senators have thought proper to insist upon 
against the principles of the homestead bill. Thus, it has been con¬ 
tended by certain senators of the old States that the public lands not ac¬ 
quired since the deeds of cession cannot be disposed of, except in ac¬ 
cordance with the conditions of these instruments ; and that, as regards 
subsequent acquisitions, the distinction proposed by this bill would be 
unequal, and therefore unjust. It can be successfully shown, however, 
as.regards the first branch of this proposition, that, in order to comply 
with that requirement of the deeds of cession, that the lands ceded 
should be regarded as “a common fund for the use and benefit of such 
of the United States as have become, or shall become, members of the 
confederation or federal alliance of the United States, according to their 


6 


usual proportions in the general charge and expenditure,” that i fJI . ne¬ 
cessary to have reference to the conditions imposed by the eighth arti¬ 
cle of the constitution of the confederation, namely: that the proceeds 
from these lands “should be paid into the national treasury according 
to the amount of real estate held in private hands in each State ; and if 
any portion remain unexpended, that it shall be paid back, in the same 
proportion, to the States from which collected,” and not distributed 
through the treasury for general purposes. 

Such was the rule under the confederation, but it is evident that un¬ 
der the present constitution it is wholly inapplicable, and impossible to 
be carried into effect. The revenue of the country, whether collected 
from the customs or the sale of the public lands, is paid into the na¬ 
tional treasury, without any reference to the rule embodied in the deeds 
of cession, and is applied for the “general welfare” under the limita¬ 
tions ifnposed by the constitution of 1789, and without any reference to 
the eighth article of that of the confederation. It is no longer possible 
to ascertain the proportion of each State in the “general charge and 
expenditure ”—that phrase having relation to a status which has been 
wholly changed by the new constitution—and no longer possible in 
the same way to pay back to the several States, parties to the “fede¬ 
ral alliance,” the surplus over the expenditures fixed by Congress. 

It can be maintained, on the other hand, with irresistible strength of 
argument, that the Stales which were parties to the deeds of cession 
were also parties to the constitution of 1789—an article of which confers 
the amplest powers of disposal of the public lands, which the passage of 
the homestead calls for. So incontrovertible is this fact, and so complete 
is the abrogation by the present constitution of all conditions precedent 
in the deeds of cession, that it can hardly again be drawn into question. 

As to the principles of the homestead being unjust to the old States, 
as regards the territory acquired since the deeds of cession, the objection 
will scarcely be deemed tenable—the subsequent acquisitions having 
been made subject to all the conditions and limitations of the constitution, 
and falling, therefore, under the same rule of distribution. Besides, it is 
to be remembered, that the old States have originally received grants of 
the lands within their limits, and have since converted and applied the 
proceeds. They have been also, and still continue, the objects of govern¬ 
ment bounty in other ways. Have not liberal appropriations been 
made, from time to time, for the improvement of rivers and harbors in 
the old States ? Has not the public money been expended there pro¬ 
fusely for the construction of light-houses, coast defences, and public 
edifices ? And have they not been the greatest sharers in all the great 
measures of legislation which mark the history of the country ? If we 
speak only of the States of New England, and the sugar-growing States 
of the South, have they not been the greatest gainers by the system of 
high duties? But it is impossible, by the same act of legislation, to 
benefit, in the same degree, a new country in the wilderness and States 
which have a dense population, with few unoccupied lands. It is, how¬ 
ever, sufficient to prove the impartial and paternal character of the gov¬ 
ernment, if all interests are duly remembered and benefited in turn. 

But again, when we speak of benefiting the old States, surely we 
mean the people of those States, and not anything whatever of an inan- 


7 


R 

imate nature, whether mountain or plain, field or forest, town or country* 
If so, the homestead is a measure in which the people of the old States 
will participate the most largely, because they have the largest number 
within their limits who can take advantage of its provisions. I know 
indeed that this very circumstance is made an objection to the home¬ 
stead, because it is pronounced a temptation, an inducement, to a large 
class of the people of the old States to settle on the public domain. 

But, if it be true that portions of the valuable citizens, whether native 
or foreign, of the .old States, shall feel inducements presented them 
by this bill to emigration, is it any reason for withholding such induce¬ 
ments, that the landholders of New England, New York, and Pennsyl¬ 
vania, would thereby be deprived, to some extent, of their tenants, or 
that the demand for farms might be somewhat less active ? Have the 
rights of labor no claims to recognition on the part of the National Legis¬ 
lature, except as secondary and subsidiary to those of landholders ? 
Sir, I am free to confess that my reflections upon this subject have led 
me to very different conclusions. I am of opinion that government, 
then, best discharges its multifarious and responsible duties, as far as 
practicable and legitimate, within the scope of its powers, by advanc¬ 
ing every interest under its control. Sir, I feel convinced that no such 
remnant of feudal bondage, no such slavish doctrine as would tie the 
tenant to the soil of his employer, will ever find sanction in the free 
hearts of this land. Our ancestors had done with all that centuries ago, 
in the mother country, when, from the reign of Edward I, through 
that of Henry VII, and in that of Charles I, they finally succeeded in 
extinguishing the tenure of villenage , and converted all lands in the 
Kingdom into free and common socage.' The legal systems of these 
States recognise nothing else. Our theory of social rights, embodied in 
that immortal preamble of Jefferson, recognises nothing else 

The assumption, however, that the passage of this bill would, for a 
time, operate unequally towards the old States by reducing the price of 
property there, is not well founded. Surely such a consequence would 
not be more likely to follow this measure than it would the preemption 
system. Whatever irregularity might be the result of the introduction 
of the new policy, I believe it would be of brief duration, and quite in¬ 
appreciable. Such are the energies of industry—such the stimulus of 
free institutions, that no field of enterprise will long remain unoccupied. 
The flood of prosperity which is continually rolling over the land, like 
water, is ever tending to a uniform level. 

But to dispel the apprehensions of gentlemen, let us refer to the re¬ 
ality of things as exhibited by the experience of the country for the 
last seven years. A period of unprecedented prosperity in the depart¬ 
ments of commerce, agriculture, and internal improvements—in which 
so many avenues of intercourse have been constructed between the 
seaboard and the valleys of the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence; and 
in which more than one hundred and forty-five millions of acres ol the 
public lands have been disposed of, a good portion of which has been 
reduced under cultivation—there never was a period in which the 
prices of produce and real estate in the old States have been better 
maintained. Thus, notwithstanding the vast amount of the products 
of the interior which have been brought into competition with those of 


8 


the old States, and notwithstanding the mighty stream of emigration to 
the West, by which their population has been annually carried off, the 
effect upon prices has not only been wholly unfelt, but the latter have 
even continued to advance. 

A kindre objection to the last, is that which represents the free 
grants proposed by this bill as doing injustice to those who have here¬ 
tofore purchased of government, at $2 and SI 25 per acre. Here you 
make a distinction, it is said, which works injustice to former purchas¬ 
ers. But you made the same distinction, and created an inequality 
which worked the same injustice, when you reduced the price of the 
lands from $2 to SI 25 per acre; and still later, when, at the last ses¬ 
sion, you passed the land graduation bill. By this argument, whatever 
policy in regard to our land system we may first, by accident, have 
stumbled upon, that, with unchangeable tenacity, should be maintained. 
Such an argument is of no avail. You cannot tie up the hands of your 
successors in legislation; and the policy which is good for one genera¬ 
tion may be totally unadapted to the next. “ Tempora mutantvr , et nos 
mutamur inillis .” The times change, and we with them. Doubtless, the 
feudal system, in the warlike times in which it flourished, in the middle 
ages, was a wise and useful institution. So, in the condition of things 
existing in Europe, a monarchy in some form may be the best govern¬ 
ment for any given nation ; though the progress of ideas, and of social 
amelioration, may in the next age find it obsolete and functus officio. 
Sir, it is one thing to require a price for your domain, when the country 
is in need of a revenue, and another and quite different one to give it free 
to actual settlers, when it is no longer needed for revenue, and in order to 
carryout a great scheme of policy not less favorable lo individuals than 
to all the great interests of the country—a policy which, more than any 
other, will offer its appropriate inducements to labor; will build up into 
organized societies the untenanted wilderness, and people the solitary 
leagues of fertile soil which stretch away from the confines of the States 
to the Western ocean. 

It was insisted with much earnestness by a distinguished Senator 
from Delaware, [Mr. Clayton,] that this is a partial measure; that it 
is class legislation; that all men cannot turn farmers; and that, there¬ 
fore, in order to equalize your bounty, you should grant money to those 
who cannot use land. But, tried by the test, it may safely be said, 
that never has a law of a beneficial character obtained a place upon 
j T our statute-book, but what the interests for which it provided have 
been partial and limited. If this is a true objection, let me ask once 
more, does it not lie just as strongly against the preemption system? 
Does it not lie just as strongly against a bill for the benefit of manufac¬ 
turers?—for the benefit of soldiers and marines?—or for a bill raising 
the salaries of judges ? If a man desires the special benefits of this 
legislation, let him bring himself within the class upon which the bounty 
is conferred. Let him fight the battles of his country ; let him engage 
in the working of metals or the spinning of cotton; in the culture of 
cane and the boiling of sugar; or let him become a dignitary of the 
bench, and he will share directly in the benefits of the legislation, if it 
be special. These are all staple interests of the countiy, and it is 
competent for all to engage in them without let or hindrance. Who 


9 


ever thought of making it an objection to the law allowing land bounty 
to the widows of soldiers, that unmarried women could receive no bene¬ 
fit therefrom? Whoever objected to the imposition of a forty per centum 
duty upon iron, that it did not benefit the boiler of salt? Or, who ever 
considered it doing injustice to the rest of the community that you ap¬ 
propriate money for the construction of marine hospitals, open only to 
seamen or boatmen? 

Sir, the objection that the homestead will not directly benefit every 
class of industry in the country, and in equal degree, is of a kind similar 
to that in the instances just mentioned; and it is equally futile in all. 
Every man, whether rich or poor, has the power of privilege, if his cir¬ 
cumstances will permit him—of which, as in other cases, he is left to 
be the judge—of becoming an actual settler on the public domain, 
and thus participating directly in the benefits conferred by this bill. 
We claim it, however, as a most positive and favorable distinction of 
this measure—which regards the cultivation of new soil, and bringing 
under civilizing influences new territory—that it does benefit, not the 
less surely and decidedly, because indirectly, the great interests of 
manufactures and commerce, and in a higher degree than any other 
special measure whatever. 

Another ground of opposition, much insisted on by distinguished 
Senators, is the favor shown by the bill to American residents of foreign 
birth. But what is the condition of things under the existing system? 
Foreigners, not even citizens, are allowed to settle on the public lands 
under the pre-emption laws of 1830 and 1841, and it has been deemed 
sufficient if they have become citizens at the reception of the patent for 
their locations. And by the very liberal provisions of the graduation 
bill passed at the last session, and approved August 4, 1854, “ any 
person” can enter as an occupant, and settle upon the lands, and ac¬ 
quire a title and patent at the graduated ‘and reduced rates. Upon 
what reasons of policy, of justice, of humanity, should more rigorous 
conditions be imposed upon any of the objects upon whom the pro¬ 
visions of this bill will operate? Is it proposed to exclude foreigners 
altogether ? Then you must repeal the naturalization laws, and adopt 
a policy worthy of ancient Egypt, or modern Japan. But let us be 
careful, in doing so, that we belie not the great principles which lie at 
the basis of our government, and that we prove not ungrateful to the 
memories of our fathers, and to those noble and self-sacrificing spirits 
who were prodigal alike of their money and their blood, throughout the 
two wars which secured us in the establishment of our independence; 
and to the thousands who since have come to cast their lots with ours, 
incorporating themselves with us, becoming assimilated to our institu¬ 
tions and usages, and infusing an element of incalculable strength into 
our republican system. 

I believe, sir, that it is a futile notion that, by any policy short of a 
tepeal of the naturalization laws, and perhaps even a prohibition to 
the exile of a “ home and a country,” you will be able to stop the in¬ 
flux of foreigners. The premium held out by our republican institu¬ 
tions will attract crowds, till the population of the continents, shall at 
last be equalized. You cannot stay this resistless wave of immigration. 
The over-crowded districts of the Old World will heave it upward and 


10 


onward, and it must struggle for a subsistence and a home. It is, then, 
far more philosophical to seek such a disposition of it as, from a source 
of mischievous irritation, shall convert it into one of profit to the State ; 
and, while assimilating it to our institutions, shall make it tributary to 
the general prosperity. 

It has, again, suited the purposes of the opponents of the bill to view 
it as designed to offer bounties to interfere with the natural course of 
industry, converting the followers of commercial pursuits and mechanics 
into farmers; and great evils have been predicted to follow from this 
disruption of old pursuits. The farmer, it is said, will not only have 
his land cheapened in the old States, by the withdrawal of popu¬ 
lation, but the price of produce will be reduced by the competition of 
the number of those who have turned farmers. In this anticipation, 
however, no account is taken of the overstocking of trades, professions, 
and business pursuits, and by the numbers which the advance of each 
fresh generation is annually pouring in their ranks. Poverty and want 
are the inevitable result to large numbers. By this bill, we only pro¬ 
vide a refuge for this surplus, where by the “ sweat of the brow” they 
may, at least, obtain a livelihood; for agriculture, as a pursuit, has this 
favorable peculiarity, that it enables its followers to obtain the means 
of living, if it does not furnish them with any great surplus for ex¬ 
change. While, in other callings, the ability of an individual to sus¬ 
tain himself depends upon the quantity of his peculiar products which 
may be wanted by others, the agriculturist ’can live in a great measure 
on what he produces. Sir, if the prosperity of the old States depends 
upon a large surplus of poor population, so that labor shall be cheap 
and abundant, and if we are called upon to sustain this prosperity by 
so shaping our legislation as that the masses shall be kept ground down 
to the earth, I, for one, shall ever protest against the wrong. I prefer, 
rather, a policy in accordance with the noble*sentiment of the poet; 
“Fiat justitia mat cerium .” Let justice be done, though the heavens fall. 

But the argument against the bill on the ground of injury to the old 
States, in the several phases in which we have considered it, is not 
borne out by the facts. It is shown, incontrovertibly, by statistics, that 
while the western Si ates have been forming, the progress of the old States 
in wealth and population has been proportionate. An examination of the 
facts thus collected, discloses the interesting truth, that while in the last 
ten years the old States have advanced in population one hundred per 
centum faster than the most flourishing of the European States, the land 
States have, at the same time, received from them more than one-fourth 
of their whole population. There is, in truth, no antagonism; and it is 
in vain that the opponents of the measure would attempt to create any. 
A benefit conferred upon one State is quickly diffused among all—thus 
resembling mercy in the quality ascribed to it by the great dramatist. 

A Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Bayard,] distinguished alike for his 
learning and legal acumen, has been pleased to term the measure “ an 
illusion;” mark the Words, sir, “an illusion”—there is nothing in it, he 
says, “ it is all an illusion.” I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that to the 
Jacobites of the seventeenth century, the abdication of James the I, 
and the accession of William of Orange, seemed at first “an illusion.” 
But the succession of one line of the Stuarts was then broken* and the 


11 


House of Hanover is still upon the throne of England. No doubt, when 
it was first urged, the claim of the Americans to the right of taxing 
themselves seemed to the whole people of England an “illusion,” as 
did the plan of independence to the royalists in the Revolution ; but this 
right has lately received a formal acknowledgment by the House of 
Lords with reference to Canada, and our independence has long been 
firmly established. Later still, the project of Catholic emancipation 
was, for years, deemed by Lord Eldon, and other tory leaders in the 
Lords, as an “ illusion but the Catholic relief bill is upon the statute- 
book as a law of the British realm. Illusions, too, were regarded, no 
doubt, the projects for reform in the English system of representation 
and the corn laws ; yet everything necessary for the security of popular 
rights, in regard to these subjects, has been yielded to the perseverance 
of the people, supported by a great and just cause. 

A distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Brodhead,] has 
been pleased to plant himself in decided opposition to the measure upon 
the ground of constitutional difficulties, and upon a variety of other 
grounds, which he rather touches upon than develops. My answer to 
the Senator’s speech shall be brief and to the point. 

On the constitutional topic, I will, in the first place, cite the third 
section of the fourth article: “ Congress shall have the power to dispose 
of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory 
and other property of the United States.” I will next refer to the prac¬ 
tice of the government under this provision, and will point to the incor¬ 
poration of the homestead principle in the bills for the organization of 
the Territories of Oregon and New Mexico. In ib ustration of the exer¬ 
cise by Congress of the general right to dispose of the public lands, I 
would instance, also, the grants to railroads and for school purposes, 
for the construction of canals, the improvement of navigable streams, 
and internal improvements, &c., which, in the aggregate, are found to 
have amounted, on the 30th September, 1S54, to more than one hun¬ 
dred and fifty millions of acres. 

I would next instance, in support of the same power, the opinions of 
the most eminent for ability and patriotism, and the most popular of 
our statesmen, living and departed. I would mention, as names which 
have sustained the theory and approved the practice, those of Jefferson, 
who proposed the settlement of a portion of the Louisiana purchase 
west of the Mississippi, by conditional grants of one hundred and 
^ sixty acres of land—of Monroe and his Cabinet, of whom were 
Calhoun and Crawford, who, in 1S19, approved the giant to the Con¬ 
necticut asylum, of lands in Kentucky; and that of James K. Polk, 
who approved the incorporation of the homestead principle directly in 
the act erecting the Territory of Oregon. I would refer, for the sanqe 
purpose, to that of Franklin Pierce, in his approval of an act passed at 
the last session of Congress, making gratuitous grants of lands to actual 
settlers in the Territory of New Mexico. I would also refer to the grant 
made to Isaac Zane, during the administration of Washington, of three 
tracts of land, for blazing a bridle-path from Wheeling to Maysville, 
Kentucky ; to the Florida settlement law, granting a quarter-section of 
land on "condition of occupancy for the term of three years; to the 
law of 1791, by which grants of land were made to settlers at Vincen- 


12 

nes ; to the act of 1792, by which grants were made to the Ohio com¬ 
pany for actual settlers ; and to the law of 1795, making a similar pro¬ 
vision for settlers at Galliopolis. The principle has had the judgment 
and sanction of Jackson and Webster—names above suspicion for 
ability and patriotism—and is sustained by the highest authority of our 
living patriots and statesmen. The constitutional right of Congress to 
dispose of the lands in such way as their judgment may approve, is in 
clear and explicit language ; and in the face of the unlimited exercise of 
the power, from the foundation of the government to the present time, 
there is no man who can wink so fast that he cannot see it. 

It has been remarked that none but “ drunkards and loafers” will take 
advantage of this bill; that its benefits will inure almost exclusively 
to that class of our citizens. And is it to terms like these, stigmatiz¬ 
ing as criminal and subjecting to ridicule the misfortunes of a portion 
of our countrymen, that we are called upon to listen as to overwhelm¬ 
ing arguments against the policy of this measure ? Abusive and de¬ 
preciating epithets are cheap, and ask not the aid of talents to give 
them point and effect. Their employment, on the contrary, argues the 
want of better capital for the service. The same style of argument 
was employed against the'principle of free government, the great prin-- 
•ciple of political and civil equality as proclaimed by Jefferson; and 
even the benign religion of Christianity was derided in the persons of 
the humble fishermen who were its first propagators. 

The class of men for whom this bill is intended to provide are not 
“ drunkards and loafers.” They are the same class who, under Wash¬ 
ington, in 177G, erected the batteries upon the heights of Dorchester, 
and entered the town of Boston as General Howe withdrew. They 
are the same who, in the trying march from field to field, never lost a 
spark of their patriotic devotion, but, in the hour of disaster, like their 
gallant leader, still cast their eyes to the mountains as the dernier resort 
and final refuge of their liberties. With Washington they fought brave¬ 
ly at Brandywine and Valley Forge, and witnessed, with him, the sur¬ 
render of Cornwallis at Yorktown—the closing scene of the Revolution. 
They are the same class who, afterwards, in the struggle which began 
in 1812, in which the young America, was again called upon to contend 
with the power of England for the Ireedom of the seas, were found by 
the side of Jackson, at New Orleans, braving, with dauntless breasts, 
the British bullets and bayonets, and sending up the victorious shout 
from under that glorious banner which they had borne to immortal 
triumph. They are the same who, with General Taylor, gathered unfa¬ 
ding laurels upon the deadly field of Buena Vista ; who landed with Scott 
at Vera Cruz, and accompanied him in his heroic march through the 
valley of Mexico to the gates of the city; and they are the same who, 
under its beetling walls, having extinguished, by sure aim, the lights 
upon the ramparts, fought afterwards through the gloom and confusion 
of night, and until the broad splendors of the meridian sun shone upon 
their flag of victory waving over the Plaza. They are not “ drunkards 
and loafers,” but of that class who, in time of peace, turn the furrow 
and gather the harvest, and who constitute the bone and sinew of the 
land from Maine to Texas. They are the men who repel savage vio¬ 
lence from the frontiers, who fell the forests, and who are everywhere 


13 

the chief producers of the substantial wealth of the country. They 
are of. that class who swing the hammer and drive the plane ; who 
plan and who build ; and who are found at the awl and the last, at the 
printing-press and the loom; of that class which tend the locomotive 
and guide the steamer ; which constitute our mercantile marine; and 
which fill every class of industrial pursuits. It is the class which has 
produced Franklin, and Rittenhouse, and Godfrey, and Fulton, and 
Morse. I may go a step further, and say it is the class which pro¬ 
duced Powers, and Cleavenger, and Greenough, and Crawford, and 
Mills, who, as with the chisel of Praxatiles, could almost make the 
marble speak; and West, who, as with the pencil of Raphael, could 
almost “make the brook murmur down the painted landscape.” 

But, to take leave of the objections, and the ingenious gentlemen 
who urge them, let us pass, for a moment, to the merits of the bill. It 
strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that the proper point from which to survey 
this subject, is that Which enables us to contemplate it as a great ques¬ 
tion of policy for the settlement of the public lands, and their remo¬ 
val from the trails of legislation. The unwieldiness and expense of the 
present system, and the degree to which it monopolizes and embar¬ 
rasses congressional action, are potent reasons for a change. That a 
change must be made at no distant day, there can be no doubt; for 
these evils are increasing with each recurring year. In the new dispo¬ 
sition which is to be made of this public property, I desire that, first 
and foremost, the actual settler should be remembered. Nor is it 
just that you should regard the disposition by this, bill as a gift. It is 
right, rather, to consider, in addition to the consideration of fourteen 
and one-half cents per acre, which obviates any fancied constitutional 
scruples, and covers the original cost of purchase, and the extinguish¬ 
ment of the Indian title, the five years’ occupation and cultivation as 
an ample compensation, as far better fulfilling the great object of dis¬ 
posing of the public lands, namely—of settlement, and the development 
of their resources—than the present system of selling at$l 25 per acre, 
to persons who buy with no intention of ever occupying the lands 
themselves, but solely to profit by the rise in value consequent upon the 
improvement of the neighboring lands by the labors of the actual settler. 

In great questions of policy, it has been well said, other elements are 
properly to be considered, besides those of revenue; and a greater ad¬ 
dition is thus made to the positive wealth of the country, and to her 
means of defence, than it is possible to procure by means of revenue 
arising from the sale of the lands. 

Wefind, in referringtothe history of that country from which we derive 
our representative system, and the doctrines of the common law, that the 
tendency of the best minds of the century that has just passed, was to the 
conclusion, as a distinct principle, that government lands are most wisely 
administered in private hands. This principle has received emphatic 
recognition from one of her wisest statesmen. It was Edmund Burke, 
who, in the English Parliament, more than seventy years ago, in advocat¬ 
ing a policy, in its important aspects similar to that now proposed, ut¬ 
tered that remarkable declaration in regard to the alienation of the Crown 
lands of Great Britain, that “they should be thrown into the mass of 


14 


private property, by which they will come, through the course of circula^ 
tion, and through the political secretions, into well regulated revenue.” 

Once more let us revert briefly to the origin and progress of the prin¬ 
ciple of free grants, in consideration of settlement, which we now pro¬ 
pose to erect into greater prominence in our land policy. In a speech 
which I had the honor to make before you at the recent session in ad¬ 
vocacy of this measure, I was at pains to collect from our colonial his¬ 
tory many striking instances in which, for the express purpose of set¬ 
tlement, extensive tracts of territory—portions of these now populous 
and flourishing States—were granted to one or a few individuals by 
governments much less favorable to individual rights than our own. 
The grants now proposed, though small in amount, are, in part, for the 
same recognised purpose; and, while the land subject is thereby dis¬ 
posed of in this respect, the measure has this incidental recommenda¬ 
tion: that it is chiefly the laboring class of our people—those for whom 
no direct legislation has ever been had hitherto—vflio will receive the 
first benefit of the measure. We may remember that it has been often 
urged as an argument tor a high protective policy, and # for a United 
States Bank, that those measures would “better enable the rich to take 
care of the poor.” But if government action may be invoked to favor 
directly the interests of a class who are capitalists and proprietors, in 
order that a benefit may flow indirectly to labor, what is there in rea¬ 
son to prevent us from conferring the same benefit more surely and 
directly? But the bill creates no odious or unjust distinction; and the 
wealthiest citizen, alike with the poorest, becomes entitled to the same 
privileges upon the conditions of settlement and cultivation. 

Possessing, as this measure does, in my estimation, an importance 
far above the fluctuating influences of the times, I did not hesitate at an 
early day to give to it the whole of my humble influence. I have, in 
consequence, enjoyed the high honor of seeing it twice carried by a 
decided vote through this the popular branch of the National Legisla¬ 
ture, and of missing only by a little the seal of the senatorial approba¬ 
tion. And still the measure stands as high in my regards as ever. I 
still see it as far-reaching and salutary in its influence, and worthy of 
the most earnest attention of the most eminent statesmanship. It is still 
a measure promising more than any other to impart strength to the State, 
bv unfolding her natural resources, and by providing her with a numer¬ 
ous population, attached to her by the ties of gratitude—by a love for 
the soil which furnishes them with a subsistence and a home, and which is 
their own —a population which is interested, in the highest degree, in the 
preservation of our republican institutions; and whose virtues should be 
kept alive as the true vestal fires, which will preserve in its integrity the 
matchless fabric of American liberty for which our fathers fought. 

It has been ascribed as the peculiar danger to the perpetuity of 
Democratic governments, the temptation to yield to measures which 
promise a present, but temporary benefit, to the neglect of those whose 
benefits, though ever so great and decided, are yet remote. The con¬ 
sequence is, a restless and excited career, terminating early in national 
ruin. The remedy is, to be wise in time; and so to shape, by legisla¬ 
tion, the policy of the country, as that, while the external prosperity of 
the individual may be promoted, the best guarantees may be provided 


15 


for his advancement in intelligence, and his establishment in virtue. 
If the history of nations teaches anything at all, it is the emphatic les¬ 
son that Democratic institutions depend for their permanence less upon 
the intelligence thaii upon the virtue of the people. Hence the wisdom 
of those laws which tend to encourage such dispositions in the masses, 
and hence an argument, not inferior in strength to any, for the enact¬ 
ment of the homestead. 

With the obstacles which, since its first introduction into this House 
as a distinctive measure, the homestead has encountered, and the strug¬ 
gles through which it has passed, we are all familiar. It is to this 
body that belongs the honor, which will perpetually endear them in 
the hearts of the people, of the initiative in recognising, on a basis the 
most decided and libera l, of the great principle of cheap homes. 

A word or two as to what I consider will be the most important effects 
of the measure. One, the most obvious, and not the least important, will 
be the removal, in a great measure, of this subject of the public lands, 
which has been so long the fruit of bitter contention, from the nails of legis¬ 
lation, and the arena of politics. Let us pass this bill, and we shall prove 
that governments are not essentially stdfish and exacting—treating the 
masses as subordinate to their rulers, and consulting much more the 
interests of favorites, of classes and corporations, than the rights of 
individuals, but that they are capable of rendering justice to all. Pass 
this bill, and you will strengthen the arm of the government, by cre¬ 
ating a community of interest, and thus strengthening the ties which 
bind together the government and the citizen. Mr. Jefferson, in one of 
his letters to John Jay, remarked that “cultivators of the earth are the 
most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most inde¬ 
pendent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country, and 
wedded to its liberty and interests, by the most lasting bonds.” 

While the form of our government secures equality of political rights, 
this measure will go far to secure equality of social condition; and we shall 
thus witness a reversal of the old system, by which, instead of exacting 
contributions from the citizen, the government assumes the truly pater¬ 
nal function of encouraging him by its bounty. Let us pass this bill, 
Mr. Speaker, and incalculable are the benefits which we shall thus 
confer, not only upon the present, but unborn generations. You will 
thus send rejoicing into the bosom of many a family where, before, the 
discouragements of life had stifled ambition and effort. You will carry 
joy to thousands of firesides, and gladden the hearts of myriads through¬ 
out the country. Under its benign operation, the unreclaimed wastes 
in the great basin of the Mississippi shall spring into a beauty and 
loveliness which shall be truly worthy of this golden age. There, 
upon the sea-like prairies, and far‘away upon the sources of the Yel¬ 
lowstone, the Columbia, the Arkansas, and the Colorado, and many a 
stream which now “ hears no sound save its own dashing”—under the 
shadow of the Stony Mountains and the Sierra Nevada, the happy settler 
will, under the provisions of your munificent policy, teach the wilder¬ 
ness to bud and blossom as the*rose. Under the hand of industry 
thus wisely fostered and encouraged, waving fields will enrich the land¬ 
scape ; lowing herds and the noise of the arts will enliven those now 



16 


inaccessible retreats; and still new settlers will rise up to avail them¬ 
selves of this provision, and to bless you as its authors. 

Under this provision of the homestead, in connexion with that in re¬ 
gard to the Pacific railroad, which I hope will be so extended as to 
reach the Pacific, and invite to our shores the trade of Asia, a chain of 
cities, like that which marked the course of the India trade in Asia 
and Europe, along the shores of the Mediterranean and the Adriatic, 
will stud the vast expanse between theAtlantic and Pacific oceans; 
and from the sources of the Saskatchawan, on our northern border, 
even unto the Isthmus, will be eventually gemmed with populous and 
flourishing communities. Hand in hand these two great measures 
should penetrate the wilderness. The forest will then fall before them, 
and the fruits of nature, springing from the seed deposited by the hand 
of industry, will everywhere burst the sod. Civilization will then 
prosecute unimpeded her stately march—bearing with her the virtues, 
the arts, the graces, and refinements of life. 

By passing this bill you extend the market for manufactures, and 
press into further requisition the Briarean hands of commerce. The 
locomotive will achieve fresh conquests over time and space, and the 
steamboat will continue to find new waters still unbroken by its re¬ 
volving paddles, and with which its tireless strength may contend. 
Our mercantile marine, multiplied in countless numbers under this 
genial policy, will groan under kindly burdens, and whiten all the ocean. 
The world will be our tributaries, and our resistless energies will en¬ 
gage us in a prosperous exchange with every people upon earth. There 
is literally no limit to our prosperity, as I believe, to be immensely pro¬ 
moted by the measure under consideration, if only true to ourselves, 
and to that matchless bond of union which holds us together. Let us 
by this measure temper, by the thousand healthful influences springing 
from agricultural pursuits, the luxurious excesses to which the colossal 
achievements of our commerce and manufactures are. tending, and we 
may rest in confidence, that, under Providence, the restless and Titanic 
movements of the age will eventuate in the welfare of the human race. 

With the establishment of this measure, I should feel that my career 
as a legislator had not been fruitless. On the contrary, I should be 
proud of the accomplishment of a measure recommended alike by wis¬ 
dom, policy, and justice. I should covet no higher honor than to be 
remembered in connexion with legislation like this. I may say further, 
in view of resigning, with the close of the present Congress, my 
authority into the hands of my constituents, that I am satisfied that no 
subject has, within the period of my membership here, come under our 
deliberations, which, by its importance and beneficial character, was in 
any degree so well entitled to my labors. 

Of that constituency to which I am about voluntarily to return, I 
must be indulged in a few words in conclusion. I must be allowed to 
express my proud sense of the honor which they have done me in twice 
making -me their Representative upon this floor, as well as for that good 
will of which they have given me'the most positive and distinguished 
testimonials. 1 am proud that, upon the spot which knew my infancy, 
and which has witnessed my struggles in the battle of life, I have been 
favored by the choice of a substantial, an intelligent, an industrious, 


17 


and eminently virtuous community, as their Representative in the man¬ 
agement of public affairs. I am proud to represent here a district, 
which, in the noble State of which it forms a portion, owns inferiority to 
none. Others may be more populous, and more favored by commercial 
advantages, but none surpasses it in the wealth of its agricultural and 
mineral resources; in its capacity to sustain a great population ; in 
picturesque beauty, and in the worthy character of its people. It was 
in this district, where noble mountains stoop their blue summits to fields 
of golden fertility and culture, and where forest-crowned hill and grassy 
valley are interspersed with delightful diversity, that the Father of his 
Country, after the disastrous field of Braddock, made among the first 
settlements upon the waters of the Youghiogheny. It was thereon the 
banks of the Monongahela, near to the mountains through which its 
waters break their passage—a river than which no sweeter stream of 
more gentle or beauteous flow, threads its way to the ocean—that 
Gallatin found his chosen retreat, of all the States besides. Learning 
has found, too, in its bosom, a happy abode, and colleges of reputable 
fame, bearing the names of Washington, of Jefferson, of Madison, and 
of Greene, are sending forth continual rays of intellectual and moral 
light to irradiate and beautify the popular mind. The home of enter¬ 
prise not less than of wealth and of moral excellence, her adventurous 
sons are found pursuing their useful and thrifty callings along the Ohio 
and all the rivers of the Mississippi valley, from the mountains to the 
Gulf ot Mexico. To my cherished home in that lovely valley, I am now 
satisfied to resign myself, conscious that in the discharge of my public 
duties I have not swerved a tittle, whether it regards party obligations, 
the interests of my constituents, or the welfare of my country. 






REMARKS 


OF 

HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 

H 

IN THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 3,1853, 


On the hill for the relief of the widow of Commodore Decatur , and the captors 
of the Frigate Philadelphia, 

Mr. Speaker: I move to take up Senate bill No. 265, for the relief 
of the captors of the frigate Philadelphia, and ask the House to indulge 
me whilst I make a brief statement of the history and merits of this 
claim. The bill makes compensation to the surviving officers and crew 
of the little ketclf Intrepid, for signal and gallant services rendered in 
the month of February, 1804, who entered in the night the harbor of 
Tripoli, and under the very guns of the castle of the Bashaw, boarded 
the frigate Philadelphia, then a captured prize in the possession of the 
Tripolitans, cleared her decks, killing twenty of her crew in a close 
fight, drove the balance into the sea, then fired the vessel, by which 
she was burnt to the water’s edge, and made their escape without the 
loss of a single man. This gallant act was conceived by Stephen De¬ 
catur, and executed by him and his gallant crew with singular fidelity, 
resolution, and courage. The history of this affair is as brief as the 
achievement was brilliant; and I shall therefore detain the House but 
for a moment in referring to it. After the close of the Revolution, and 
in the beginning of the present century, our navy was greatly reduced 
in the number of its vessels-of-war; they were in a dismantled con¬ 
dition, and numbers of the officers and crews were disbanded. As a 
consequence of our defenceless condition upon the sea, spoliations were 
committed upon American commerce; and nowhere was piracy so bold 
and reckless as in the Mediterranean. For a time we enjoyed the 
friendly protection of the British, Swedish, and other friendly powers, 
until withdrawn from commercial rivalry, when the government of 
Tripoli, in May, 1801, made an open declaration of war against the 
United States. 

The government of the United States, prior to being informed of this 
declaration of war by Tripoli, had sent a squadron into the Mediter¬ 
ranean for the protection of American commerce, which remained there 
until the fall of 1803, when the frigate Philadelphia, while in chase of 
a Tripolitan vessel, stranded off the harbor of Tripoli, and in that con¬ 
dition contended gallantly against the powerful batteries of the citadel 
until, the tide falling, the ship settled, was captured, and afterwards 
carried into Tripoli as a prize. Commodore Bainbridge, his officers 
and men, made prisoners, were confined in the prisons and dungeons 


2 


of the city. This, disaster was touching to the pride and spirit of our 
navy, and it was agreed that something must be done. In the mean 
time, Commodore Preble, in command of the Constitution, had passed 
the Straits of Gibraltar and took command of the squadron. Decatur 
suggested to Commodore Preble his plan for the recapture of the frigate, 
and on the 31st of January, 1804, he received orders to carry his pur¬ 
pose into execution The crew of Decatur consisted of three lieutenants, 
seven midshipmen, one surgeon, and sixty-two seamen and marines, 
all of whom were volunteers in the enterprise. On the third day of 
February, this gallant band left the harbor of Syracuse, in Sicily, and 
against adverse winds, upon a doubtful sea, and still more doubtful 
enterprise, succeeded in entering the harbor of Tripoli, boarding the 
ship, clearing her decks, fully rescuing her, then destroying the vessel 
by firing her, and escaping by the lignt of the conflagration without the 
loss of a single man. This daring deed shone forth then, as it does now, 
an illustrious instance of heroic achievement; one that will redound to 
the credit of the American navy, and in all times to come prove as im¬ 
perishable as the pages of American history. 

There is no portion of the globe that has furnished so many battle¬ 
fields, or where history has recorded so many instances of heroic daring, 
as that which is washed by the waves of the Mediterranean and the 
Adriatic; }’et there is none that for bold conception, energetic, heroic, 
and successful execution, will compare with that of Decatur and his 
gallant associates. The result was of incalculable advantage to the 
nation. It not only caused the African pirates to quail before the ter¬ 
rible energy, skill, and courage of our sailors, but it secured the libei ation 
of the captives, it abolished tribute, it encouraged our commerce, and 
secured an honorable peace. The very order of Commodore Preble in¬ 
dicated the hazard and responsibility of the enterprise It was, “to 
enter that harbor in the night, board the Philadelphia and burn her; 
and in order to prevent alarm, to carry all by the sword.” The order 
was executed under a heavy fire from the shipping and batteries. 
Commodore Preble, in his official despatch detailing the achievement, 
says of the captors, “that their conduct in the performance of the 
dangerous service assigned them, cannot be sufficiently estimated. It 
is beyrnnd all praise.” 

The proposition, Mr. Speaker, of providing a reward for these gallant 
men and their representatives has engaged the attention of Congress 
since 1S24. Decatur, I believe, fell and died in 1822. Though great 
difficulty has been found in adjusting the mode of distributing the re¬ 
ward, none has ever been experienced in admitting the abstract justice 
of the claim. Though not technically embraced by the law which pro¬ 
vides prize money to the captors of an enemy’s ship captured, and then 
burned and destroyed, yet this case of the capture of a ship once our 
own, by an officer who volunteered to perform a desperate and skilful 
enterprise, is infinitely more entitled to our regards than the ordinary 
cases embraced by the law of prize, from which class of cases, however, 
it does not differ in principle. Congress seems to have taken this view 
of the justice of the claim, for in every instance where an investigation 
has been had, and a report made, either in the Senate or House of Rep¬ 
resentatives, its abstract justice has been recognised and acknowledged. 




General Jackson, in his message of December 8, 1829—his first mes- 
; sage to Congress—recommends that the claim be paid. Five times 
has it passed the Senate, and ten times been favorably reported upon 
1 in the House of Representatives, and it would seem that the tardy and 
uncertain action of Congress, like the “law’s delay,” amounted to a 
“denial of justice.” I trust that it will be delayed no longer. It is a 
claim full of merit and full of justice. Its passage will make provision 
for the widows and descendants of men who really did the State some 
service. Decatur, Lawrence, Bainbridge, Morris, and McDonough, 
are names illustrious in American history. 

The widow of Commodore Decatur, I am informed, resides within 
this district in absolute poverty.^ I think that Congress should endeavor 
to make cheerful a fireside so long desolate by the neglect of a govern¬ 
ment that owed her husband so much. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it 
is true that the nearer we approach the source of organized power the 
less sympathy we experience, the greater the neglect we discover. 
This case does not stand alone^or am I surprised that the settlement 
of the claim has been so 1pdg delayed, when I remember that eight 
years since, in an idle stroll, I saw the remains of Decatur in the vault 
at Kallorama, exhibiting all the evidences of neglect,—the coffin de¬ 
cayed—his ashes exposed to the eye—not a lineament discernible. A 
silver plate bearing the inscription of Stephen Decatur marked the coffin, 
whilst the remnant of a silken glove covered all that remained of the 
hand that had defended so gallantly the rights and honor of the country. 
But national injustice and neglect will not endure forever. I remember 
well that but a short time aftewards the national spirit arose as if from 
a common impulse, and the remains of Decatur were removed from the 
grove of Kallorama. to his native place, the city of Philadelphia. The 
spirit, the feeling, the patriotic ardor that marked their reception into 
the city of Philadelphia, and the procession to their last burial-place, 
was equalled only by th it which characterized the return of the great 
conqueror from his prison-grave to the city of Paris, the home of his 
early life and the theatre of his glory. 1 trust, Mr. Speaker, that the 
national spirit will again arise, and that we will pass this bill and do 
justice to the widows and children of gallant men, all of whom, with 
the exception of but one, have gone to their graves. I would be glad, 
then, even at this late hour in the hurried moments of legislation, if it 
could be taken up, considered, and passed. 




REMARKS 


or 

HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 

IN THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 10, 1854. 

On the death of Henry A. Muhlenberg. 

4 

Mr. Speaker : It is, sir, with no ordinary emotion that I rise to 
, notice the melancholy event which has just been announced. As asso- 
i ciated with the deceased in the representation on this floor of the peo¬ 
ple of Pennsylvania, and standing to him in the relation of personal 
and intimate friendship, I feel that I am but discharging the last painful 
! duty. 

Henry A. Huhlenberg, as has been well remarked, could boast of 
an ancestry of eminent distinction. The brother of his grandfather, 
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, was the first speaker chosen to pre¬ 
side over the House of Representatives of the United States under the 
present constitution. Joseph Hiester, his maternal grandfather, was 
among the early governors of Pennsylvania. His father, Henry A. 
Muhlenberg, long a distinguished member of this body, was afterwards 
chosen by General Jackson the representative of his government to 
the court of Vienna; and after discharging with high credit to his repu¬ 
tation the duties of that responsible position, he was, shortly after his 
return to Pennsylvania, nominated to the highest office known to her 
constitution. 

It will be fresh, sir, in the memory of many who now hear me, how, 
with the prospect of being carried triumphantly to the chief magistracy 
of that honored commonwealth, the father was stricken down by the 
hand of the same invisible enemy which now, on the threshold of 
a public career, and in the bright morning of life, has prostrated the 
son. 

The deceased, sir, was a man of high character, of inflexible integ¬ 
rity, of polished education and manners, and with a mind richly stored 
with solid and practical information. It was conceded by all who 
knew him that be would have been a most invaluable member of this 
body. True, he had represented his native county—the ancient county 
of Berks—in the Senate of Pennsylvania, and had shown an ability 
which promised much for the future. Although comparatively a stran¬ 
ger in this body, his death will cast a gloom over every portion of his 
native commonwealth. 

Asa husband and a father his happiness was complete; and it is with 
feelings of sympathy, the most heartfelt, that we recur to the images of 
the devoted wife and little boy—an only child—watching anxiously 




6 


and hopefully by the bed of the stricken sufferer, soothing bv their 
presence his dying moments, and rendering the last sad tribute of 
affection. 

Sir, it is a solemn thing to die. When we close our eyes for the last 
time upon the objects of our affection, and the bright light of the morn¬ 
ing—to feel to know that when the portals of the tomb close upon all 
that pertains to this perishing mortality, the spirit has taken its flight to 
“ that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns !” 
The column which will mark his grave may serve to perpetuate by its 
inscription the memory of his virtues, but the desolation of his own 
home nothing can supply. 

When we contemplate, Mr. Speaker, the domestic woe, as well as 
the public loss, which an event so sudden and overwhelming occasions, 
we cannot but feel, with a painful sense of its reality, the uncertain 
tenure of our mortal existence. But yesterday, and I saw him within 
these marble columns, full of life and spirits, participating in the organ¬ 
ization of this House, wearing modestly the honors of his trust; and 
to-day, numbered with the dead! It is in the providence of God to 
create and to destroy. The honored and the lowly crumble alike be¬ 
fore his power. A few short years, and the national representation 
now seated around me will follow in the path of our departed friend, 
and the grave becomes a common receptacle. 

I second, Mr. Speaker, the resolutions which have been offered by 
my colleague. 



REMARKS 


IIOS. JOHN L. DAWSON, 


TAMMANY HALL, NEW YORK CITY, SEPTEMBER 2,1852. 


In answering to your call, fellow-citizens, it is perhaps well to re¬ 
mark, that it is the duty of every democrat, not entirely unaccustomed 
to public speaking, to freely contribute his aid in giving a direction to 
public sentiment. In a western man—residing at the western base of 
the Alleghanies, and at the head ot the great valley ol the Mississippi, 
where its waters first break from the mountain—it seems almost like 
presumption, here in Tammany Hall, where the couucil-fires k of liberty 
and democracy are always burning brightly, to make the effort. It 
requires something more than modesty to attempt to add anything to 
what has been so well and so eloquently said by the distinguished gen¬ 
tlemen who have preceded me. The one (General Cass) ripe in years 
and acquirements, and distinguished tor his statesmanship, enjoys a 
fame limited only by the contines of civilization. His services to his 
country and his party will brighten the pages of his country’s history. 
The other, (Judge Douglas,) the young senator from Illinois, the 
architect of his own fortune, and who, by the force of energy and 
intellect, has attained high distinction in the Senate, whilst his name, 
already in the morning or his life, is familiar to his countrymen from 
the Aroostook to the Pacific. It is true, as he has said, that the de¬ 
mocracy of New York, as well as of Pennsylvania, has someihing to 
atone for in the history of the past, whilst much is expected from each 
in the future. We are rejoiced that the great democratic party of New 
York stands out once more in bold relief to the national view, united 
and thoroughly organized for the coming contest. It seems incredible 
that any pjrtion of the democratic party of New York ever flinched in 
a contest for principle; whilst the union of the party now will go far 
to wipe out the memory of the fact. New York—one of the old thir¬ 
teen in the cause of the Revolution, and proud of her revolutionary 
battle-fields—is, by position, association, and all the glorious recollec¬ 
tions of the past, democratic in all her tendencies. In times past, she 
has done much to secure the ascendency of democratic principles, and 
in shaping democratic policy. It was the vote of New York, in 1800, 
cast in the House of Representatives of the United States, that elected 
Mr. Jefferson, and thus gave permanent recognition to the doctrines of 
the great apostle of American liberty. In that trying and eventful 





8 


contest, the defeat of Aaron Burr, by the vote ol New York, was the 
death blow to the federal party. From that day until the present, the 
democratic party, with but three exceptions—the election of Mr. Adams 
by the House of Representatives, in 1814, and the election of military 
chieftains in 1840 and ’48—has been successful in every contest for 
the Presidency; while its principles have made permanent progress, 
and, like the rays of light, illume eveiy mountain and every valley, 
not only elevating the masses of this country, but inspiring with hope 
and promise the down-trodden millions of Europe. In union there is 
strength, and in strength there is victory. Let us profit, then, by the 
admonition, and especially by the lessons taught by experience. In 
the coming contest, Pennsylvania will do her duty; she will be true to 
herself, and I cannot doubt that she will cast her vote for Pierce and 
King, for the party is united. In 1848, although defeated in Pennsyl¬ 
vania by a slight defection upon the boiders of New York, and by the 
portable troops that were thrown into the city and county of Philadel¬ 
phia, the great democratic party of the Keystone State moved in solid 
phalanx to the charge. In that memorable contest we cast for the 
regular nominees of the democratic party a greater vote than we gave 
for Polk and Dallas, in 1S44. In Pennsylvania, we acknowledge no 
leaders beyond the pale of the party, and it is our pride and our boast 
that we contend alone for the 'principles of our faith. In 1848, we con¬ 
tended zealously for the triumph of those principles, and in their de¬ 
fence fell, at the last moment, disabled in the engagement, yet by no 
means conquered. The defeat was but temporary, for principles 
are immutable. It was Mr. Clay who said that “ truth is inevitable, 
and public justice certain.” The result of the election in 1S48 was an 
illustration of this truth, for the principles of the democratic party did 
survive, like a battlement upon the ocean, defying the tempest and the 
lash of its angry waves. The triumph of the opposition was not only 
an empty triumph, but it was one fraught with evil. After the inaugu¬ 
ration of General Taylor, a policy had to be agreed upon in the organ¬ 
ization of the newly-acquired territories. So diversified was public 
expectation, that an accommodation was sought in the recommendation 
of the policy of non-action . 

The popular mind recoiled at suggestions so weak, so impracticable, 
and so pregnant with anarchy. Congress presented the spectacle of a 
nation rife with civil feuds and bordering upon dissolution. When the 
administration saw the difficulties with which they were surrounded, and 
heard the storm which they had raised raging in the capitol, they were 
compelled to retrace their steps; and no sooner was General Taylor in 
his grave, than President Fillmore, with Webster upon one arm and 
Crittenden upon the other, followed by the remainder of the cabinet, 
abandoned the policy of non-action as abortive and impracticable, 
stepped upon the republican platform, and leaned for support and pro¬ 
tection upon the doctrines of Lewis Cass. The doctrines of the 
Nicholson letter, the doctrine of non-intervention, were recognised as 
the true part of statesmanship, and were adopted as the basis of the 
compromise—a compromise that restored quiet to a’distracted people, 
and has been received as the olive-branch of peace. These events, 
gentlemen, are now matters of history, and in their review the demo- 


9 


cratic party relies with confidence upon the enlightened judgment of 
public opinion. In 1848, the cry of military glory supplied the place 
ol an avowed policy, and, with our own dissensions, proved the pass¬ 
port to power. The sequel I have described, and hold it up as a 
warning for the future. In 1824, Mr. Clay, then in the full vigor of 
intellect and matured statesmanship, uttered a fearful warning against 
the danger of converting military chieftains into civil rulers. The 
parly ol which he was the great leader and champion, from Maine to 
Georgia., joined in the denunciation. They averred that history was 
philosophy taught by examples, and appealed with confidence to its 
instructive pages for the lessons they contain. 

Yet Mr. Clay himself lived to witness these admonitions, so elo¬ 
quently and fearfully uttered by him, and so fully endorsed and re¬ 
echoed by his party, afterwards disregarded by that party, and himself 
immolated and sacrificed, by the nomination of a mere military chief¬ 
tain, then in command of the army, and fresh from the fields of for¬ 
eign conquest—a nomination which Mr. Webster declared was “not 
fit to be made.” After Mr. Clay had grown old, “ weary and worn,” 
in the service of the party into which he had breathed life, and hope, 
and vigor, and become, as it were, canonized, the last political intelli¬ 
gence that filled his ear was the announcement of the nomination, by 
the Whig convention, of a military chieftain, the very head of the 
American army; not because General Scott had high qualifications, or 
had the slightest experience in the schools of civil policy, but simply 
because he had attained the rank of a major general, and worn with 
credit, upon the field of battle, the uniform of his country. There is 
scarcely an instance upon record when great military captains have 
failed, when within the scope of their power, to subvert the civil au¬ 
thority, and, at the sacrifice of liberty, to plant themselves upon its 
ruin. Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals of ancient times, 
and cherished a kinder regard for the welfare of the people $han any 
captain of his age. He had done much for Rome, extended her boun¬ 
daries, rendered illustrious the Roman arms, and added renown to the 
Roman name. Yet his conquests changed the ambition of the patriot, 
till finally it knew no restraint, acknowledged no superior. The Rubi¬ 
con formed no barrier to the advance of his columns, for they crossed 
its waters, and passed the gates of the seven-hilled city; Caesar him¬ 
self demanding of Metellus the keys of the Roman treasury; and thus, 
by a union of the sword and the purse, he struck down the liberties of 
his country. Look at the history of modern Europe, and its pages are 
filled with a recital of revolutions for liberty misdirected, and finally 
defeated by the treachery of military leaders, who, made arrogant by 
conquest, seldom failed to convert the sword of the patriot into the 
sceptre of the despot. Look at Poland, for near a century bleeding 
under military despotism, the result of her military spirit, and the 
treachery of her military leaders. Look at Hungary, fired with 
the spirit of liberty, and struggling almost with superhuman en- 
ergy for its possession; yet one of her greatest captains brough ther 
back to the yoke of Austria, from which Kossuth had freed her. 
Look at France, struggling for freedom since the revolution of 1789, 
dotting Europe with her battle-fields, and, at this very moment, shame- 





10 


fully betrayed and sacrificed to the military despotism, not of an im- 1 
perial Caesar, but to his mere shadow—the faint echo of his departed 
glory. Such is the peculiar debauchery wrought in the public mind of I 
a nation once addicted to hero-worship, that it loses the power of using 
its own judgment, and, with it, the power of self-government, lhe 
history of the whig party is a history of hero-worship, as well as of incon¬ 
sistencies. In 1848, in their desire for the power and patronage of the 
government, in addition to the cry of military glory, they sought to pre¬ 
judice the public mind against the exercise of the veto power, one of 
the most conservative and valuable provisions in lhe federal constitution. 
There is no department of the government where a limitation is more 
required than upon legislation. That limitation is to be found m the 
careful, judicious, and prompt exercise of the veto power, and upon 
this point the whig party have now surrendered. General Scott, in his 
letter of acceptance, avows that he will exercise it. In 184S, the whigs 
cried aloud for a protective tariff; yet in 1852, when they were forced, 
for the first time, to make a declaration of their creed, they gave protec¬ 
tion the go-by as the obsolete policy of a by-gone day. 

The patriots of the Revolution, in their brightest as well as darkest 
hours, when contending with the power of England upon the sea 
and upon the land, relied for success upon the justice of their 
cause. May not the democratic party rely upon the justice of their 
cause with equal confidence, and with an equal assurance of suc¬ 
cess? To the principles and policy of the democratic party we 
can trace the foundation of this government, as well as its progress 
and power—a progress in all the elements of industry, enterprise, 
improvement, commerce, and navigation, unequalled in the history 
of nations. It was a democrat whp drew the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence. It was a democrat who draughted the Federal Consti¬ 
tution, an acknowledged model of a republican government, so com¬ 
pact and perfect in its structure, so nicely and perfectly balanced in all 
its pari s, forming a Union of States, and acting upon them like the great 
central attractive power of the sun upon the planetary system, securing 
a steady motion and ample protection to each and all of them in their 
proper spheres. It was a democrat who advocated and urged the 
policy of the purchase of Louisiana, b} r which new States and Terri¬ 
tories have been added to the confederacy—and the free navigation of 
the Mississippi. It was a democrat who advocated the policy and se¬ 
cured the purchase of the Florid as.; thus making perfect our boundaries 
and military defences in the south. It was democratic policy that se¬ 
cured the annexation of Texas, that resisted the aggressions of the 
Mexican government, and in defence of our national honor and national 
rights, pushed the conquest until our western boundaiies were extended 
to the shores of the Pacific. It was the democratic party which de¬ 
livered the country from the influence, danger, power, and corruption 
of a national bank—which established the independent treasury, by 
which the revenue of the government has since been promptly collected, 
safely deposited, and promptly paid over—which checked and finally 
arrested the system of internal improvements by the general govern¬ 
ment—a system which, unequal in its operation, and pregnant with 
State jealousies and discordant interests, would have exhausted the 
national treasury, and laid broad and deep the fo» ndation of national 



11 


bankruptcy. It has been the policy of the democratic party to extend 
our commerce, to encourage emigration, and to make this the land of 
the free and the asylum of the oppressed. The unprecedented pros¬ 
perity of the great city of New York—with her great commercial 
avenues now crowded with strangers from every State of this Union, 
and from every quarter of the civilized globe, with unlimite d evidence 
of wealth and prosperity, with her castles and spires reaching high 
into the heavens, with a thousand ships floating on the beautiful rivers 
that wash her boundaries, and a thousand sails crowding her magnifi¬ 
cent harbor, the busy theatre of life and action, and inviting to its com¬ 
mercial and peaceful waters the ships of every nation and the produc¬ 
tions of every clime—is traceable, in a great meashre, to the genius, 
enterprise, and intrepidity of a distinguished democrat. It was De 
Witt Clinton who effected a connexion of the waters of the Hudson 
with those of Lake Erie, by which the trade of great inland seas, as 
well as of the vast regions of the northwest, was secured to the city 
tof New York. De Witt Clinton was a democrat, true to himself, true 
o the obligations of his party and his country; and whilst the great 
canal, which bears his name, will forever stand a living monument of 
his genius, patriotism, and enterprise, it will pour into the city of New 
York a trade which, in connexion with her foreign commerce, will cause 
her to advance in wealth and population, and in the extension of her 
limits, until she will have equalled, if not surpassed, the city of Lon¬ 
don. How, then, can any patriot hesitate to give to the democratic 
party and its nominees his cordial support? It is the party of freedom 
and of progress. Its principles find their origin in the best feelings of 
the human heart. 

The election of Franklin Pierce will secure the ascendency of these 
principles, their recognition as the great and true basis of legislative 
action. Franklin Pierce stands forth as their acknowledged champion 
and exponent. Franklin Pierce was nominated by the Democratic Na¬ 
tional Convention with singular unanimity, and his nomination has been 
received everywhere witn satisfaction. Duty requires that we should- 
give it a cordial and undivided support. Franklin Pieice is ihe de- 
scenf tdant orue revolutionary stock, a man of high and commanding 
talents, but of modest pretensions and little aspiration; yet the keen 
discernment and partiality of his fellow-citizens have elevated him to 
high and distinguished positions. He could voluntarily withdraw from 
the Senate to the quiet home of his native hills; yet, in the hour of na¬ 
tional difficulty, he could quit the quiet and comlorts of that home, to 
march into a distant land, to share its battles and faithfully perform his 
part in the changeful drama of a soldier’s life. His career and history 
is a fruitful commentary of the influence of freedom and tree institu¬ 
tions upon the native powers and energies of the mind, whilst his elec¬ 
tion to the highest office in the gift of a free people will furnish an ad¬ 
ditional illustration of the justice and equality of republican institutions. 

Of Col. King I need say bqt little. His history is written upon the 
legislative records of his country for the last quarter of a century. A 
man who can live that long in the contests of legislation, and then re¬ 
ceive the endorsement of his party in a National Convention, is a demo¬ 
crat well tried and worthy of the highest honors of t! e republic. 




12 


We have but one duty to perform, and that is to secure their election. 
We must do it by organization, energy and action. There is not a 
cloud to be seen above the political horizon as large as the prophet’s 
hand to discourage us. Maine and New Hampshire will stand firm in 
the east; whilst we have more than an equal chance for the votes of 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey. The whole south, with 
scarcely a solitary exception, will cast their votes for Pierce and King. 
The great west, from the Ohio to the Mississippi, will march up in solid 
phalanx to the rescue. Pennsylvania will resume her honored position 
as the keystone of the democratic arch; whilst the democracy of the 
nation will look to the great Empire State to lead the van and make 
the triumph complete. 




SPEECH 


OF 

HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 

On the 4th of July, 1854, 

IN INDEPENDENCE SQUARE, IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. 


Mr. President and fellow-citizens : However familiarized by 
liequent recurrence the occasion which calls us together, the patriot 
can never contemplate it with feelings of indifference. So pregnant 
with momentous consequences to the world have been and still con¬ 
tinue the events which are recalled by this day’s observance, that 
memory and imagination are alike fired in dwelling upon the past and 
shaping the future. It is not my purpose, however, in answering to 
the call with which I have been honored by your partiality, to intrude 
upon your patience but a very few suggestions, perhaps not uninterest¬ 
ing, to which the occasion gives rise. 

And in the first place, I cannot omit at this time a reference to that 
recent event, perhaps the most important in your civic history—in con¬ 
sequence of which you stand before the world to-day a city of greater 
magnitude and promise than any return of this anniversary has yet 
beheld you. Appropriate for the day which hallows in our affection^., 
the Union of the States is a word of congratulation upon the union of 
your municipalities. Auspicious of good for your future may be the 
act of yo,ur consolidation! 

iThe leading and honorable part taken by Philadelphia in the form¬ 
at on of our confederacy was a consequence of her territorial position 
not less than her superiority in numbers, and the intellectual and moral 
character of her population; and if her energy and enterprise, guided 
by wise counsels, have raised her to a position inferior to none of her 
sisters, doubtless the same energy, the same skill, the same judicious 
expenditure of capital, the same generous spirit of rivalry, with an 
infinitely greater variety of resources and industrial pursuits, will con¬ 
tinue permanently in the advance, in all the elements of municipal 
prosperity, the city of your attachments. At this moment, excepting 



14 


London, the largest manufacturing city of the world, and the natural 
market for the greatest deposites of coal and iron upon the globe, she 
is urging the extension into the farthest recesses of the great region 
west of those nerves of iron—those veins and arteries of intercourse— 
which, while promoting a vigorous and healthful circulation between 
the city and rural districts, will furnish the surest basis of a great and 
permanent external commerce. But Philadelphia, as the metropolis 
of Pennsylvania, is destined to a greatness which can be measured 
only by that of the State of whose wealth and resources she is the ex¬ 
ponent. 

Turning a moment to the old Commonwealth, what find we among 
her sister States comparable with her ? With a happy position in 
respect to climate, which, while severe enough to impart energy to her 
inhabitants, is yet mild enough to present Nature in her most interest¬ 
ing and agreeable phases, her landscape presents ever} 7 variety of 
beauty and grandeur; and while politically the balance-wheel of the 
confederacy, her position territorially is one of the most commanding 
importance. Her eastern border washed by the waters of the Dela¬ 
ware, and touching at one extremity upon the great lakes; penetrated 
by the noble Susquehanna and its north and west branches, by the 
Jnniata, by the Alleghany and the Monongahela; her surface a 
tissue of railways and canals, she holds at the same time upon the 
west the keys of the great valley of the Mississippi. With the finest 
coal-fields in the world, her eastern Atlantic slope has a market, 
limited only by the seaboard, while that upon the west extends to 
the Gulf of Mexico. The Alleghany range, which divides her east¬ 
ern an l western portions, is really a mountain of iron, covered with 
exhaustless forests of valuable timber, and whose soil even is richer 
than a great portion of New England. It is also pertinent to the occa¬ 
sion to remark, that upon these lofty summits the patriot, casting his 
eye eastward and rejoicing in the commercial greatness of the nation, 
and westward in her agricultural wealth, cannot but Del impressed 
with the conviction that here, in these impregnable fortresses of Nature, 
the liberties of his country will find their last entrenchments. 

I have referred to the great lines of inter-communication between the 
Delaware and the Ohio. But similar works are everywhere in pro¬ 
gress. Tunnelling the mountains, or following the valleys in their 
serpentine course/they form, together with the canals, a complete net¬ 
work, interlacing your whole Atlantic slope; while the same iron arms 
are reaching out towards the lakes to grasp a portion of the trade of 
those inland seas, or piercing the most distant and inaccessible por¬ 
tions of the State to draw forth from each, to this great mart, its pecu¬ 
liar products. 

But little inferior to New York in square miles of surface—greatly 
superior to her in domestic resources—in the character of her popula- 
lation she boasts a similar descent, and has the same retrospect of rev¬ 
olutionary memories; the commonwealth of Penn inviting to settle¬ 
ment*, by its foundation in deeds of peace, in charity, tolerance, and 
brotherhood, nnt alone the English, but Germans of superior character, 
and the adventurous and enterprising of other European States found 



15 


be^e a chosen retreat. In the words of the lamented bard, who wrote 
so well that he has left us to regret that he wrote so little— 

“ For here the exile met from every clime, 

And spoke in friendship every distant tongue; 

Men from the blood of warring Europe sprung, 

Were but divided by the running brook.” 

And here, 

“ The blue-eyed German changed his sword to pruning-hook.” 

The patriotism of this vhried population has demonstrated itself 
upon many a blooded field. While Pennsylvania presents in Fort Ne¬ 
cessity and Braddock the earliest scenes upon which the Father of his 
Country exhibited his youthful prowess, her gallant sons crossed the 
Delaware and participated in nearly all the battles of the Revolution 
till its final and triumphant close. 

While the States of the great basins drained by the Mississippi and 
the St. Lawrence have advanced with many strides in the career of 
progress; while Ohio with her two millions, Indiana and Illinois with 
their respective millions; while Michigan, and Wisconsin, and Missouri, 
and Iowa, have all been brought under cultivation, and are pouring their 
abundant products into the market of the world ; while Louisville and 
Cincinnati, Detroit and Milwaukie, Chicago, St. Louis, and San Fran¬ 
cisco, have sprung into great centres of trade and civilization, which 
the beginning of the present century knew not at all, or only as 
villages, Pennsylvania has lost none of her importance. Virginia 
and Kentucky, and the southern States of the “Old Thirteen,” 
if they do not show a proportionate advance, have sent annually their 
migrating streams to build up the States of the West and South ; a nd 
while on the great prairies the corn-tassels wave to many a son of the 
Carolinas and Virginia, the cotton-bolls whiten many a field upon the 
Arkansas, the Red river, and the Trinity. In the mean time Pittsburg 
has become the great workshop of a valley with fifty thousand miles 
of boatable navigation; and Philadelphia, while contributing to an un¬ 
told extent to the growth of the younger members of the Union, has 
come to embrace within her limits more than half a million of happy 
people, and, in her present freshness and vigor, seems but just ready 
to launch forth upon a new career. 

But let us look at Pennsylvania in another point of view. We find 
she is the first State west ol the Hudson—yes, west of New England— 
that established a system of common schools. Her attempts at a sys¬ 
tem of popular education, almost coeval, indeed, with her colonial 
origin, became completely successful under the administration of Gov¬ 
ernor Wolf; and now a stream of knowledge is borne into every 
valley and every mountain defile, and purifies every breeze that visits 
her vast extent. Colleges, academies, female seminaries, are found 
in every county in the Commonwealth; while every township, and, 
indeed, almost every cross-road, presents its com mom school-house, 
furnishing education for thousands of children, and reminding us of the 
beautiful expression of the Irish orator: “Who knows but among 
those little inmates there may be some mind wrought of the finest 



mould, and stamped with the patent of the Deity!”—some mind that,; 
thus cultured and fostered, and ripened in the spirit of republican free- • 
dom, may yet sway the civil destinies of this country, or, in its future || 
conflicts, may lead the armies of the nation to battle and to victory, .? 

Who, then, would not be a Pennsylvanian? [Cheers.] Who does 
not feel proud of his lineage and his native home ? In reviewing our 
past history, from the time Penn first entered the waters of the Dela¬ 
ware, and the smoke of his Indian cabin first curled above the tall 
forest-trees which stood where this beautiful city now stands, through 
the long train of illustrious incidents which crowd the pages of her 
history, who does not fi el his heart glow with pride that his lot has 
been cast within the limits of such a Commonwealth ? [Cheers.] The 
mind, indulging in such a retrospect, knows nothing of the feelings of I 
Marius while musing amid the ruins of Carthage. No signs of slug- 
gishness are here, or incipient decay ; but all is life, energy, prosperi¬ 
ty, and progress. 

Nor do we find aught to dim these bright anticipations when we look 
abroad. Glancing for an instant at our mother-land, we see that she 
has grown great by the force of her position and as a maritime power. 
Illustrious in her long line of classic literature, and in the profound 
ability of her statesmen, in the splendid triumphs of her arms, and the 
brilliant achievements of her navy, the nations of Europe have quailed 
before the power of England, and the limits of her empire are now 
beyond the setting sun. Yet the young America—even now in the 
morning of her national existence—has proven more than her equal 
Mrpon the battle-field—has struck down the cross of St. George in 
triumph upon the ocean; whilst her statesmen will compare proudly 
with Chatham, Fox, Burke, and their illustrious compeers. Her 
superior in the general intelligence and enterprise of her people— 
her equal in all the elements of national strength and prosperity—in 
the race of commercial greatness she will soon hold the trident of the 
ocean, and command the trade of the world. In view of the rich 
prizes which the future offers, the position of Pennsylvania is one of 
marked prominence. The “ Keystone State”—her honored appella¬ 
tion—is destined to be still more expressive of her position and ad¬ 
vantages than at present; and in a more distinguished degree than 
ever will she firm the shining mark of the confederacy. 

We are now, Mr. President, in the full enjoyment of the heritage of 
the Revolution; and casting our eyes to the other side of the Atlantic, 
we see that the nation from which we chiefly derive our origin, and from 
which we won our independence, is now, as one of the allied powers, 
engaged in resisting the extension of despotism. Belgium, which so 
long figured in history as the battle-field of Europe, is to be so no 
longer. It is not upon Paris that the allied armies are now marching ; 
but, with Paris in the alliance, they are marching upon the Danube ; 
for at this time French and English cannon are heard in the mountains 
of the Balkan, while their naval guns are sending the funeral-cry over 
the troubled waters of the Euxine, and along the shores of the Baltic. 

While these events are passing, the peace, the progress, and pros¬ 
perity of this country are unexampled in the history of nations. 



17 


She stands out as a beacon-light for every continent, and a star of 
hope for every people. Very different, indeed, have been the 
principles upon which States have been founded, and upon which 
they have risen to dominion. Caesar sought to distinguish his coun- 
lr 3 r by universal empire. Napoleon, imbibing the same spirit, saw 
no barrier in the Alps, the sands of Lybia, or the snows of Russia. 
England, with a policy not less broad, has placed her ambition in ter¬ 
ritorial aggrandizement—in the extension of her industrial resources 
and nautical triumphs; while the countrymen cf Washington have 
sought permanence and fame by institutions founded in justice—by the 
glorious example of enlightened liberty, and regard for equality of 
rights. 

While the nations of Europe will all suffer by the existence of the 
war in which they are participants, our course will be still upward 
and onward. Our internal resources receiving a fuller development, 
our enterprise tempered; our heretofore unlimited credit brought to 
the test of sober realit} 7 —with a healthful and necessary adjustment of 
balances, indispensable to a sound condition of trade-—the energies of 
the nation stimulated by the great diversion of industrial force in Eng¬ 
land, France, and other countries, we shall also obtain the carrying 
trade of the Bailie and Black seas. 

The features and the colors of the picture thus drawn it is in our 
power to preserve distinct and vivid. It is incumbent.on us to allow 
no sullying hand to tarnish a single ray that gilds the shield of our 
federal Union; and then if an enlightened public opinion shall keep 
pace with the development of our physical resources and our growth 
in all the elements of wealth and power, our national existence 
may be perpetuated as long as the Chesapeake, the Delaware,Mhe 
Hudson, and the rivers of New England, shall pour their waters into 
the Atlantic, there to mingle in the gulf stream with the Mississippi and 
its thousand tributaries. 

I cannot conclude, Mr. President, these imperfect remarks without 
again referring to the locality in which we are assembled. Myself 
from a distant section of the State, I know well the pride which every 
Pennsylvanian feels in the greatness of Philadelphia. But, distin¬ 
guished by her institutions of learning and benevolence, by the in* 
tegrity and enterprise of her merchants, by her men of professional 
eminence, by her great extent and elegance, and by her love of the 
arts, she is justly the pride of the whole country. 

We should not suffer it to be forgotten that here, in this very city, 
Franklin found a theatre for the exercise of his extraordinary genius. 
Here, as a printer, he became the fabricator of his own fortune; as a 
patriot he wTOle, counselled, and struggled for the independence of 
his country ; and here as a philosopher he disarmed the lightning. 
Here Godfrey invented the quadrant, by which the mariner, on the 
pathless ocean, is enabled with accuracy to determine his position. 
Here West taught the canvass to reveal the eye of fire, the form of 
beauty, and the living landscape. Here, upon the waters of the Dela¬ 
ware," Fulton began those experiments in steam which resulted in the 
perfecting of the greatest of human inventions ; whose mighty fruits are 


18 


now seen in the steamers which are crossing the ocean, defying wind 
and wave—which are vexing every sea, and threading the rivers of 
every continent. And here Rittenhouse found the earth too limited a 
'Sphere for his genius, and the glass conducted him to the heavens, 
where his philosophy had full scope amid the splendor of a thousand 
worlds. Within the city of Philadelphia—in that ancient and honored 
building under the shadow of whose walls this mighty concourse of free¬ 
men are now assembled—American freedom had her birth; and she 
is the last spot in the confederacy where that freedom will find a grave. 
True to the constitution and the Union of the States—“ sink or 
swim, live or die, survive or perish ”—she will be the last to yield 
either. 



AN ADDRESS 


o 


BY 


HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 


BEFORE THE 


WASHINGTON AND UNION L. SOCIETIES 

\ 


OF 


WASHINGTON COLLEGE: 


DELIVERED 


On Wednesday Evening, June 18th, 1S5G. 


WASHINGTON, PA: 

GRAYSON & HART, PRINTERS. 
1856 . 






CORRESPONDENCE 



Washington College, June 19th, 1856. 
Hon. John L. Dawson: Respected Sin,—We, the undersigned, committees 
of the Washington and Union L. Societies, tender to you the thanks of the 


Societies for your able and eloquent address, delivered before them last evening 


and respectfully solicit a copy for publication. 


JOSEPH VANCE, 


HENRY WOODS, 

> Cora. W. L. Society. 

L. B. FLACK, 

) 

W. B. FARIS, 


JOSEPH HAYS, 

> Com. U. L. Society. 

J. H. MARSHALL, 



Washington, Pa., June 19th, IS56. 

Gentlemen: —In compliance with the request contained in your joint note 
of this date, I respectfully furnish you for publication a copy-of the address dc* 
livered by me last evening before the Washington and Union Literary Societies. 

Respectfully yours, JOHN L. DAWSON. 

To Joseph Vance, 

Henry Woods, £-Com. Wash. L. Society. 

L B. Flack, 

W. B. FAnis, 

Joseph Hays, 

J. H. Marshall, 


• Com. Union L. Society. 

















> 





























. 

.. 



































































ADDRESS. 


Members of the Union and Washington Literary Societies , 

And Ladies and Gentlemen: 

It is with a pleasure which I feel at a loss for fitting terms to ex¬ 
press, that I am here this evening, in obedience to the partial summons 
of your Societies. Forgetful, indeed, must I have proven of those high 
benefits to which I confess myself beholden,—of the privileges of cul¬ 
ture and discipline which I have here enjoyed, could I have failed to 
respond to that call I But with pleasing facility does the memory glide 
back to bye-gone days; and visions of all that can charm the fancy 
or fire the young imagination,—that can give strength and beauty to 
mental effort,—that can stimulate with generous ambition the heart of 
youth,--throng unbidden upon me as I stand here in your presence, 
and remind me of the source of whatever I have attained of success,— 
of many of the most agreeable enjoyments of my life;—and of the 
obligations, which, as an Alumnus of your flourishing Institution, I 
am under to cherish her fair fame. My mind is thus carried back to 
the days of my college life with feelings of tender regret, to the warm¬ 
hearted and aspiring companions of my boyhood, some of whom have 
since climbed to honorable distinction, others are still struggling in the 
active and rushing currents of life, and many of whom, alas ! have 
been gathered to the grave. I think of the earnest task and the eager 
sport;—of the warm rivalry for literary honors;—of the preparation, 
the trial, and the triumph. The landscape and the beautiful village on 
which my eyes fell this morning, as I gazed from the portico of this 
classic edifice, are all familiar to me, from old and cherished acquaint¬ 
ance. Amid the rural beauties of yon pleasant hills and valleys, I have 
loitered, and walked, and run, and rode. I feel as if after a long abs 
sence, I were but revisiting my home. Of the estimable gentlemen, 
distinguished by scholarship, whose instructions, as Professors, I hero 
enjoyed, I see now but a single one before me; and the then venerated 
President of your Institution,—the learned, the just, the generous and 
truly eloquent McConaughey, has passed beyond that “bourne,” whence 



6 


no “traveller returns.” Thus much as a passing and feeble tribute, I 
feel the occasion demands of me to speak, and in so doing, I experience 
a vivid impression of the truth of the poet’s language, 

‘‘Dear the schoolboy spot 
We ne’er forget, though there we are forgot.” 

The stirring period of the world in which we live, would indeed 
furnish theme enough for consideration in many interesting aspects, 
sufficient to carry me far beyond the limits to which the occasion restricts 
me. I propose to glance briefly at some only of the most striking 
facts in the progress of humanity, as held up to memory in tho mirror 
of the past, and which, though passed in hurried review, I would might 
yet produce impressions and awaken impulses, my young friends, which 
should be felt by you for good, when you come to be men struggling in 
earnest conflict with the trials of life ! Some notice of the political and 
moral phenomena exhibited by the nations of other times and other 
lands;—the proper end of all political organizations, as evolved from 
the wrecks of former states, and from the history of our own career from 
the condition of feeble settlements to the solid basis and admirable sym¬ 
metry of our existing system, as well as of the dangers which may 
threaten it;—the present state of the world in reference to science, to 
literature, to morals, to religion:—these will afford, for a brief season, 
the subject of our desultory notice, and will assist us in determining 
wherein consists the progress which has been attained, and what it is 
which the world will shortly expect of you. We may thus be able to 
infer with assurance what are your relations with the times in which you 
live; and what are the paramount duties which your membership of tho 
most flourishing of political communities,—the noblest and most worthy 
of the patriotic devotion of a freeman,—imposes upon you. What can 
you do now while still within the walls of Alma Mater? and what 
hereafter, when the pursuits of life shall claim you for their special 
departments? When we seek to mount to the dawn of history, and to 
trace, in the succession of events, the struggles of man to improve his 
condition, our vision is startled and confounded by the number and 
greatness of the recorded changes of which he has been the subject. 
Revolution treads upon the heels of revolution, as rapidly and with as 
dazzling effect to the perception, as the capricious combinations of tho 
kaleidoscope. Left soon after his creation upon this planet, to tho 
light of his own reason,—holding all his corporeal comfort, his felicity 
of mind, and his advancement towards the perfect happiness of which 
he is susceptible, upon the tenure of the exertion of his mental and 
physical faculties,—the melancholy picture of his experience which his* 
tory presents, is that of a giant groping in some gloomy cavern, at 
one time dashing himself against rocks, at another falling over some 


7 


horrid precipice or into some (loop abyss, seeking in vain the light 
which shall show him his true situation and circumstances, and how ho 
may proceed with safety, so as to reach that world above ground, whero 
all is clear sunshine. The torchlights which he manages to raise 
occasionally, past so limited and partial a glare, that the effect is only 
to lead him from one error into another. Those who meet him with kind 
words and proffers of assistance, are often but blind leaders of the blind, 
and if a real benefactor appears, he is rejected as an enemy, and his 
counsels of wisdom disregarded. Such seems the inscrutable mystery 
of our condition as denizens of this lower world; and such, in its first 
aspect^ is the discouraging view presented by history, of the human race. 

As a creature of imagination and passion, as well as of sense, and of 
intellect, man is seen at one time under the effects of selfish gratification, 
a laughing child of folly, or under those of disappointment, a demon of 
hell,—often the sport of caprice,—rarely the subject of enlightened 
reason. This original helplessness of the human condition, is seen in 
all man’s earliest attempts at knowledge, in whatever department. His 
ideas of a Supreme Being soon become the embodiment or reflex of his 
own untutored and erring reason, or of his debased passions. His 
Deities are the creatures of his own brain,—members of the animal or 
vegetable creation, possessing some destructive power, or the source of 
some imagined benefit,—the sun, the moon, or the stars,—a leek, an 
ibis, or a crocodile,—or that more refined and imaginative idolatry which 
constituted in part the religious system of the Egyptians, and still 
more, of the Greeks and Romans. 

Thus it is that the progress of man has been exceedingly slow,—■ 
slow in knowledge, in the enlargement of his capacities, in the pro-, 
per apprehension of hi3 "personal dignity,—in the gaining a mastery 
over the dominion of nature. In no particular are his weaknesses more 
apparent than in his efforts towards self-government. The Patriarchal 
authority, which was that originally established by nature, is seen to 
pass by easy abuse into tyranny; and the polity which acknowledges 
but a single and unlimited head,—varying through the phases of Indian, 
Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman dominion,—continued 
to afflict the earth till the Christian era. The ancient Republics scarce¬ 
ly form an exception to the general remark, founded as they were, upon 
arbitrary distinctions and principles of inequality. A similar variation 
of the government of one or of a few, has prevailed through many 
succeeding centuries, sometimes for good and sometimes for evil, till 
the times in which we live. The twelve Caesars reigned and passed 
away. Charlemagne, Alfred, and Ilaroun al Raschid .swayed their 
beneficent sceptres;—then came the Capetian race of the Gallic mon- 
archs, boasting as its chief worthies a Henry IV and a Louis XIV;—* 



8 


tlicn arose the House of Hapsburgh with its Spanish and Neapolitan 
ramifications;—William of Normandy and the glories of the Saxon lino 
in England;—and at length, in the fulness of these latter times, the over¬ 
shadowing empire of the Czar. It is under the auspices of these Royal 
Houses that the modern world has been made what it is. It is under 
monarchs of one or another of these lines, that while numberless hosts 
of men have been marshalled in sanguinary conflict and-sent untimely 
to the shades, new worlds have been opened to human enterprise, 
civilization has been extended, and the social condition of the race has 
received permanent amelioration. 

To change the view for a moment, and to regard history in another 
aspect, there is scarcely anything more remarkable than those great 
impulses, which at different times, have operated upon the minds of 
men,—absorbing while they lasted, all the energies of those different 
European nations, whose actions it has been the province of history to 
record. Every age. has thus had its characteristic. Thus the three 
centuries immediately succeeding the birth of Christ, were distinguished 
by the contests of Christianity with Paganism. From Constantine, for 
several centuries, followed the invasions of the Roman dominions by 
the Scandinavian hordes on the North, and the Saracens on the South. 
The Feudal system, introduced by the Northern conquerors, was the 
foundation of chivalry, and, when those nations became settled and con¬ 
verted to Christianity, prepared them for the crusades ,—events of mighty 
energy and awakening power, and great potency in results. The next 
great movement of the human mind manifested itself in the revival 
of learning, which, beginning in the reigns of Alfred and Charlemagne, 
shone out in full lustre in the 14th century, and the age of the Medici. 
Immediately upon this followed the Reformation, and shortly afterwards 
came the ago of discovery. Thence we pass to the Revolution of 1688 
and the present times,—the age of enlightened liberty, of progress in 
physical science, and of general illumination. 

What of benefit or utility appears in those great movements, was gen¬ 
erally met at first by the people to be most affected by them, not only 
with indifference, but with positive aversion. The Divine Founder of 
Christianity,—the great source of the superiority of modern society,— 
was himself compelled to undergo the death of a felon. Long and bit', 
ter was the struggle, before his sublime and beneficent religion succeed¬ 
ed in supplanting the gross absurdities and superstitions of polytheism. 
Guttemburgh and Faust, the inventors of printing, were persecuted from 
one hiding place to another, and constantly menaced with assassination 
for supposed collusion with the devil;—so miraculous appeared the mul¬ 
tiplication of books by means of movable types. Christopher Columbus 
was hardly able to procure for himself, for a few days,—till ho should 





9 


show the Indies to Europe, and add another continent to the njap of the 
world,—exemption from the cruel fate to which his followers, in their im- 
patience, had condemned him. Arkwright was impeded in his inventive 
efforts by the popular prejudice against machinery, and by commercial 
jealousy; yet he lived to hear the acknowledgment that England was in¬ 
debted to him for the mo3t flourishing of her national manufactures, and 
to receive the honor of knighthood. A strong want of faith in the prom¬ 
ises of projectors has generally characterized the human mind, and even 
the inventions of Fulton and Morse were greeted with ridicule, and won 
their way but slowly. Thus it is that man has been instructed and bene¬ 
fited in spite of himself. What he at times resisted as the most ob¬ 
noxious evils, have in the result proved blessings the most positive and 
distinguished. It is thus, that according to the just observation of Ban¬ 
croft, every age improves on the preceding, though it is to be observed 
that progress often treads in the footsteps of violence. Particular coun¬ 
tries, and eras, and individuals have boon made to suffer, that the race 
at large might receive the benefit. It is thus that “History has become 
philosophy teaching by example.” 

The facts of human advancement in the particular matter of Govern¬ 
ment, are analogous to those which I have already noticed in its other re¬ 
lations. It seemed indeed, as the result of ancient experiments, that 
mankind were destined to the perpetual condition of servile dependence, 
in some form ci* other of an oligarchy. The ancient republics, found¬ 
ed as they were upon arbitrary distinctions and principles of inequali¬ 
ty, proved but faltering and feeble attempts at self-government; and at 
the birth of Christ all the democratic states of antiquity had become ab¬ 
sorbed in the Roman, in which the spirit of freedom had just expired at 
the feet of Augustus tear. It is, however, obvious to remark that the 
prevalent notions of the ancient world upon philosophy and religion, 
deeply interwoven as they were with a baseless and hollow superstition, 
furnished no solid substratum on which a system of self-government 
could be expected long to repose. If, in addition to this, we contemplate 
the long period since the Christian era, during which the benign princi¬ 
ples of Christianity were perverted by rulers and by priests for their mu¬ 
tual aggrandizement,—the long period and the bloody convulsions, 
through which the human mind struggled before it attained to a just 
sense of its dignity, and came to wise conclusions upon the subject of 
Government, wo shall perhaps admit that the experiment of a Common¬ 
wealth under Cromwell was a misnomer, and that the Batavian and 
French Republics were made under circumstances and conditions,—with 
out a thorough adoption of the representative system, or with monarch¬ 
ical and despotic countries surrounding them,—the most unfavorable for 
success. It may be said they were unnatural efforts, and that indeed it 


10 


is only at the close of the last century, and in this country, that man be¬ 
came educated up to the point when he was fitted for an enlightened sys¬ 
tem of self-government. The sparseness of the population, at the foun¬ 
dation of the colonies, gave an early sense of personal importance to every 
member of those new communities. Then again the mighty extent of 
the continent, the great chains of lofty mountains, the majestic lakes 
and magnificent rivers of America, could exert no other influence upon 
the minds of its inhabitants, constantly solicited to their contemplation 
by the incidents of life in a new country,—than to expand them to a cor¬ 
responding magnitude. The seeds of liberty and independence were 
therefore sown in the circumstances of our origin and settlement; and 
free institutions have been the natural growth of America, 

But to proceed with a somewhat wider glance at the distinguishing 
circumstances of our age and country, perhaps you will hardly think 
there is any thing in all history more full of lively and instructive inter¬ 
est than the greatness and rapidity of the changes which have taken 
place in the world since the twentyffive years preceding the present cen¬ 
tury. These changes have been great and all pervading,—relating not 
only to our knowledge of the earth’s surface, its interior structure, and 
ultimate elements, as shown by the rise of the sciences of geology and 
chemistry, and kindred branches, and the advancement of the useful arts; 
but to the organization of governments, to the political conditions of 
states, to the progress of legal reforms, to the manners of the people, 
and to social opinions, literary, religious, and political. 

At the foundation of this Institution in 1806, the population of the 
States consisted of less than six millions, and the Union itself numbered 
but seventeen states. The great valley of the Ohio and Mississippi 
was then without inhabitants, save the wild Indian, and here and there 
a solitary hunter, whom no perils could intimidate; except the few incip¬ 
ient villages immediately upon the banks of the more considerable riv* 
ers, the whole vast country was a waste. What are now the great cities 
of that valley, were then known only as military posts on the outskirts 
of civilization. Commerce was still carried on by the ark, the barge, and 
the pirogue. This was among the first Colleges established west of the 
mountains, and the number throughout the Union was but thirty^two. 
There are now eight territories, with a confederacy of thirty^one states 
and thirty millions of people. When the venerated Brown and Wiley 
first assumed their duties as Presiding officers here,—when Professors 
Bussel andM’Kennan imparted their valuable instructions in languages 
and belles lettres, and James Reed trained the young mind in mathe¬ 
matics and the exact sciences,—the great invention of the steamboat 
was yet struggling towards perfection in structure,convenience, and speed. 
Railroads were yet undreamed of; and Morse had not subjected the 



11 


most subtle of nature’s elements to be the vehicle of man’s thoughts. 
It was then thought a great achievement in steam navigation, Chen 
Capt. Shreve accomplished the distance from New Orleans to Louisville 
in one month. The hum, and bustle, and activity of commercial and 
manufacturing industry, such as now exist in the two great centres of 
our Commonwealth, were not yet awakened. The agricultural interest 
was almost the only one distinct from the professional. The common 
school system was not yet established south of New England. In thoso 
days the reverence for intellect and eminent forensic talent was great, 
much greater than at present. It may be said that it was because the 
instances of great success were more rare; but perhaps there are few up¬ 
on the present stage, who retain any recollection of the judicial and fo¬ 
rensic efforts of Addison, of Baldwin, of Boss, Campbell, Breckenridge, 
Kennedy, and Doddridge, who will admit that there have been many in¬ 
stances of approach to them among the men of later days. Doubtless 
this was owing in part to the fact that all was yet new in this country. 
The common law was to be administered and settled in accordance with 
the new circumstances of our condition. But there was another cause 
in the superior education of the Professors of the law, superadded to their 
high accomplishments and personal character. If education was less 
diffused, it was yet more thorough and according to a higher standard. 
What the stream lacked in breadth and evenness of flow, it more than 
made up in depth and power of current. 

One of the particulars in which the present is distinguished from all 
past eras, is the success with which physical investigations have been 
prosecuted, as illustrated by the progress of manufactures and the- arts 
and the diffusion of commerce. At the base of tho mighty impulse in 
these departments, is the Steam Engine. The myriads of applications of 
that mighty, yet tractable power, have transformed society, and language 
can hardly over^color, in depicting the achievements of the steam boat, 
the locomotive and railway, and the ocean steamer. Only less im«* 
portant than the wonders of steam, are those of electricity as applied 
for telegraphic communication. By this mysterious agent, when as ful¬ 
ly extended and ramified as the present age will witness it, the mind not 
only of a whole nation, but of the entire world, will be concentrated sim¬ 
ultaneously upon a single subject,—a dispatch far surpassing that of 
Mercury and Iris, the fabled messengers of Olympus. As results of 
recent improvements in chemical processes, the images formed by tho 
subtle rays of light in the camera obscura, have boenmadeto fix them¬ 
selves in pictures of permanent beauty, and by the aid of a superior 
analysis, the metallic basis of an alkali has been obtained in solid sub^ 
stance, of great beauty, and of an applicability and cheapness almost 
equal to that of iron. Who shall say that the ideas of tho Alchemists 




12 


were but dreams, and that gold itself shall not yet be shown to be tho 
combination of simpler elements ! By science, coupled with mechanical 
skill, iron has been taught a ductility which fits it for structures of al¬ 
most every description, and lightness combined with strength forms a 
new feature in modern edifices, while bridges of an elegant beauty, be¬ 
fore unknown, yet with a firmness scarce inferior to the Homan, are span¬ 
ning the broad rivers of our continent. Mountains interpose butfeeblo 
barriers to the daring genius of man, and the ponderous train rushes 
along its iron pathway with resistless # cnergy for thousands of feet under 
ground. While the structure and rig of sailing vessels has brought them 
to a closer approximation to steam, the genius of our countryman Maury, 
by the wind and current charts, which are the result of long and multiplied 
observation and careful deduction, is materially shortening their track over 
the Ocean. The power of mathematical analysis and calculation, as attained 
in our day, is seen in the designation by Le Verrier of the place of a new 
planet unseen as yet by mortal eyes; while the mammoth telescope of 
Herschel gives sublime confirmation of the prediction. This and the 
still greater instrument of Lord Boss have extended our knowledge of 
the nebular portion of the universe. The telescope of Boss has proven 
the moon to be without inhabitants, while the numerous glasses which 
sweep the sky, from observatories in every portion of Christendom, are 
still adding to the number of asteroids which form a portion of our plan¬ 
etary system and extending our meterological lore. All these are the 
fair fruits of that inductive or experimental system of philosophizing 
which was inaugurated by Lord Bacon, and which, followed up with 
such brilliant results at toe close of the last century by the philosophers 
of the continent, has ripened in this age, and in great part in our own 
country, into a fruitage of unprecedented richness and exuberance. 

The diffusion and growth of commerce within the present century has 
not been les3 remarkable. Only a quarter of a century ago, the inters 
course between this country and Europe, was by sailing vessels, and was 
attended by the evils of tardiness and irregularity, and was of compara¬ 
tively limited results. At this time, almost every considerable portion 
of the earth which affords a material for commerce, is tied to the other 
by lines of swift and commodious steamers, defying alike the wind and 
the wave, and bearing with admirable despatch and regularity and safe¬ 
ty, their teeming cargoes of the rare and valuable products of distant 
lands, or those of agriculture and the arts, with multitudes of intel¬ 
ligent and stirring adventurers, intent on spreading civilization to every 
portion of the earth’s habitable surface. It is within the brief period 
which I have mentioned, that the Cunard and Collins lines have com¬ 
menced their voyages between New York and Liverpool and Southamp¬ 
ton; that steam communication has been established between England, 


1 o 
lo 


through the Meditcranean to Egypt, and through the lied Sea and the 
Arabian to India; that a line of ocean steamers plies between London 
and Australia,and from Panama toValparaiso,and that two lines of steam, 
ers pass weekly to and fro, from New York to the Isthmus, and from the 
Isthmus to San Francisco. Within that time the great commercial port 
of Bremen has also been constantly extending, and bringing to a regu- 
lar and quicker communication, the connections of her vast shipping 
with South America, California, and Australia. No part of the world 
has been left unexplored, and even in the hitherto deemed impenetrable 
regions of frost, our countryman Kane has found a stretch of three thou¬ 
sand miles of open sea, whoso waves tossed by tho violence of the ele-s 
ments forever break against shores of perpetual ice. 

It cannot be doubted that these results are eminently conducive to the 
happiness of man. What indeed was the condition of the refined na¬ 
tions of antiquity, in comparison with that of the moderns in the single 
respect of physical comforts! True the principal personages enjoyed what 
was then regarded as luxury; but in many respects, how mean and sorry 
would appear the splendor of Kings compared with what many a private 
citizen is able to enjoy in these days without bestowing a thought upon 
the high progress in civilization of which it is the index. Where was 
then the universal diffusion of silk and cotton fabrics which now furnish 
so large a portion of the clothing of the human family ? Even as late 
as Queen Elizabeth silk stockings for ladies first came into use, those pre¬ 
viously worn having been of woolen cloth, cut to the shape, and sewed 
together; and the extensive production and consumption of our great 
southern staple, was a consequence of the spinning jenny of Hargraves, 
the spinning-frame of Arkwright, and the cotton-gin of Whitney,—all 
invented since the middle of the last century. Glass, though in some de¬ 
gree known in the time of our Saviour, was yet of great rudeness in corns 
parison with the resplendent crystal productions of our day, which are 
in general domestic use, and for ornamental purposes. The potato and In¬ 
dian corn were first introduced to the knowledge of Europeans with tho 
discovery of America, as well as the luxury of tobacco; coffee and tea 
have come into general use only since the Capo of Good Hope was 
doubled by the Portuguese; and sugar extracted from cane has been in 
general useless than two centuries and a half. Superior physical develops 
xnent may have been the consequence of the ancient simplicity of life and 
manners;but privation and destitution were probably quite as great in pros 
portion to numbers. 

What were‘the means of knowledge enjoyed by antiquity, in compar¬ 
ison with those at our command? Teaching was oral in the schools of 
the philosophers, and their knowledge of tho world being so restricted, 
their basis for generalizing was extremely narrow. Then their mechan- 



14 


ical helps were few and insignificant. A Swammerdam and Lewenhocck 
had not yet opened up, by microscopic research, that wondrous world of 
organic life, invisible to the naked eye; nor had Galileo, by the invention 
of the telescope, and its direction to the heavens, demonstrated the false¬ 
ness of the Ptolemaic theory of cur planetary system, which recognized 
the earth as the centre, and established the truth of that of Copernicus, 
which all succeeding observations have confirmed. No wonder that 
the ancient philosophers, when they left the domain of geometry and 
pure mathematics, became such dreamers. Nor was paper yet invented. 
The Egyptian papyrus, or waxen tablets and the stylus, formed the 
means of recording events, and the mighty lever of the press had not yet 
appeared, to move with its mute eloquence the popular mind. The 
acuteness of the Grecian intellect indeed, shone conspicuous in the do^ 
main of philosophy and ethics; and in his special department, the schol¬ 
astic world will scarcely allow that there has risen a superior to Arista*, 
tie. In the Fine Arts of Sculpture and Architecture, they also produced 
models which still constitute the canons of criticism. In painting and 
music, the moderns have gone immeasurably beyond them. It is, hows 
ever, in the arts of expression, oral and written, that the refined nations 
of antiquity attained an excellence, which, if reached at all in succeeding 
ages of the world, has perhaps never been surpassed. The writers of 
those days had the advantage of finding before them a field unoccupied, 
and hence the superior freshness, simplicity,and strength of their style,— 
enlivened as far as a just taste will allow, with imagery, and polished by 
the severe use of the file, to the highest degree of finish. The best models 
of taste are still the authors which you read here. The works of Homer, 
Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, Cicero, Livy, Horace, and Virgil; 
are great masterpieces of art, apart from the information they contain,— 
apart from their uses as a logical discipline of the mental powers, and 
from that knowledge of your own language which can be best acquired 
by the study of a foreign one. They are studies which will not fail to 
reward the student in proportion to his attention to them, and yet I 
would not have you dwell forever in the pedantries of dead tongues, 

I have noticed the tendency a of the modern spirit, and especially that 
of the present ago, to dominion over the world of matter,—the subjecting 
of all the powers of nature to the comfort and felicity of man, chiefly in 
relation to his physical nature. This strong tendency is undeniable, as 
the result of the -spirit of invention which is abridging and improving ev> 
ery process in the arts. I now allude to it as one of the tendencies of 
the times which is apt to pass to an injurious extreme. The effect is to 
draw off the attention from the interior world of mind and of morals,— 
to unspiritualize our existence, and make us creatures of mere matter,— 
springing from matter,—our whole lives passed in deyotion to material 


15 


interests,—and perishing at last with few ideas of the exalted origiu, na¬ 
ture, and destiny of the human mind. I say this high character of hu¬ 
manity must not be permitted to be sunk. You must not lose sight of 
it in the hurry and bustle of life. You must seek ever to sustain the 
cause of sound literature, which is the source of the perpetual renewal 
of those ideas of dignity and of beauty, which impart the true charm to ex¬ 
istence, and without which the treasures of the globe are paltry and in** 
significant. 

I have referred to the greatness and extent of changes in the world in 
general, within the period of modern history. These changes have been 
great and striking on this continent especially. When the cavaliers 
commenced their settlement at Jamestown, and the Puritans at Ply mouth, 
how numerous and powerful were the aboriginal tribes which overspread 
this country! It is mentioned by Drake, in his Indian historical collect 
tions, that no less than two hundred distinct tribes occupied America two 
centuries ago* It is true exterminating wars have done much, and the 
vicious contact with the whites has done more, to diminish their numbers. 
Within the memory of the generation which just preceded our own, and 
which has not yet passed away, these hills were vocal with the shouts 
of these free sons of nature. Their noble forms passed swiftly athwart 
the landscape, as they urged the chase with the grace and agility of 
an Apollo, or strode with quiet pace through forests of kindred 
majesty. The canoe glanced lightly over the waters of our beautiful riv¬ 
ers, the hand of the Indian maiden directing its course, and the merry 
voice of childhood was heard from groups of artless children, where 
in the covert of pleasant shade the smoke of the wigwam ascended. Old 
and young there loitered in peaceful and happy repose. All this I have 
said was almost within the memory of the present generation; and yet, of 
the myriads then within the limits of the States, only a few thousands are 
now left on this side of the Father of waters. The fact is appalling ! 
And how long will the remainder endure in tho-great valley of the Misv 
souri and beyond the Rocky Mountains. To prophesy from the past, 
and from the experience of the world that barbarism must give way to 
civilization, the poor Indian, before another century shall have passed 
away, will have met the doom of his race in the very spot where, by the 
received theory of the Ethnologists, it first touched upon our shores. 

But the changes which I have noticed in physical science, and conse¬ 
quent social amelioration in the modern world in general, are not more 
remarkable than those which have occurred in its political relations. 
At the same time that our own territory and population have increased 
to such an extent, all parts of the world are brought into unrestricted 
and intimate intercourse, and individual nations are still striving to ex* 
tend their power, as if universal dominion were not an exploded phan- 


16 


tom. Of the three leading nations of Europe, recently engaged to settlo 
the balance of power in that part of the globe, two, France and Russia, 
are practical despotisms. The third is our own mother land. The ex" 
ccllenco of the English constitution and national character are known to 
every one within the reach of my voice. That excellence, during the slow 
evolution of a thousand years, has raised her to the first rank among the 
nations. The greatness and extent of her power has been a blessing to the 
world,—everywhere that it has reached, carrying a preponderance of 
benefits, social, civil, and commercial. She is allied to us still, notwith¬ 
standing our differences on points of passing interest, by the indcstructi- 
ble ties of blood, language and literature. The alliance of the Western 
Powers, to which she has but recently formed a party, has at length ter¬ 
minated without important results; and the time may not be very re¬ 
mote when her free institutions shall become obnoxious to the upholders 
of absolute government, and she shall be driven to solicit protection 
against their combined assaults, from the giant offspring of her blood 
on this side of the water. America, as the freer State, has hitherto held 
to England a relation, similar to that which England holds to the other 
states of Europe; but in a contest, such as that to which I have advert¬ 
ed, the Old England and the Young America would make common cause. 
In the nobleness of such a cause, the free and adventurous spirits of 
America would embark with that ardour, and energy, and fertility of re¬ 
sources, which are acknowledged as national characteristics, and which 
would insure success; and the cause of enlightened liberty would once 
more witness a signal triumph. 

It may be that England, as the result of such a contest, will quietly 
lay aside the trappings of a hereditary aristocracy, and come un*. 
der institutions similar to our own. If so, it will be well, and who shall 
then be able to predict the glorious results to our race, when the two lead¬ 
ing nations of the world shall combine for the diffusion of the princis 
pies of republican equality! Then at length America shall enjoy the 
last and highest honor in reserve for her,—that of regenerating the ex¬ 
hausted systems of the Old World. This done, and under the operation 
of institutions in harmony with man’s nature, the sciences, the arts, and 
everything which can elevate and adorn humanity, will run a new ca¬ 
reer of glory, such as the world has never yet witnessed. 

With the great names which, in every department of human progress, 
have illustrated her annals, we are all familiar from childhood. Her 
warriors, her poets, her statesmen, her philosophers, are known to us 
almost in the same breath with our own. When you read the elegant 
pages of the Sketch Book, and other charming productions of the pen of 
Irving, your minds involuntarily seek a comparison in Addison and the 
classic writers of the reign of Queen Anne. The philosophic yet elo- 




IT 

( l uent stories of Bancroft and Prescott, find a parallel in the History of 
the House of Stuart, by the subtle and perspicuous Hume, and the J3e> 
cline and Fall, by the acute and glowing Gibbon. When the orators of 
our country are in our minds, aud the name of Henry is upon our lips, 
we are apt to call him the Chatham of America, resembling him in 
; power of logic, in the directness of his arguments, in his strong and 
nervous language, and in command of the passions. A parallel equally 
striking presents itself between the characters, as orators, of Webster and 
Burke, both distinguished by profound knowledge of the history of the 
; English Constitution and liberty, and animated with its spirit, and both 
filled with the grand results of political wisdom;—of Clay and Pitt,— 
alike men of expedients in policy, and equally distinguished for the as** 
tonishing efforts of intellect and eloquence which they brought to the sup¬ 
port of their favorite systems;—and of Calhoun and Brougham,—the one 
as well as the other, characterized by intenseness of mental power, and 
\ the sententious and striking diction in which their nervous ideas found 
t expression. As expounders of the Common Law, our hereditary births 
l right, there is also striking resemblance in grasp and acuteness of intel- 
f lect, in deep and Varied learning, and cogency and clearness of expression, 
'}■ between those illustrious ornaments of the Judiciary, Chief Justice Mar- 
. shall and Lord Mansfield; while in the purity of character, indomitable 
: firmness, and energetic discipline of the English Wellington, wo recog- 
J nize the leading military traits of that peerless hero, whose name your 
‘ institution is privileged to bear, and whose memory the world will forever 
I delight to honor. 

Though the people of these states may be regarded chiefly as an off- 
? shoot of the English stock, it is plain that the day is not far distant when 
^ it shall become more thrifty than the parent tree. You know the story 
of our advancement from feebleness and insignificance to our present high 
position among the powers of the earth. We have the most admirable sys¬ 
tem of polity which has yet been presented to the admiration of mankind. 
We are all justly proud of that system; and yet it deeply concerns us in 
view of the great mission we have thus to fulfil, to consider well the guaran¬ 
tees which we have for its permanence. I know we are accustomed to seek 
those guarantees in the superiority of the present age in knowledge, in 
every department, to those which have preceded it,—to that flood of 
light, especially, which in the century preceding the present time, has 
been poured upon the subject of human rights and government, in the 
deep and subtle discussions which they received, as they passed through 
the fires of Revolution. It will be thought, too, that this security will be 
doubled by the active spirit of inquiry, aiM by the freedom of intercom* 
munication, the unrestricted intercourse between all parts of the world, 
and the untrammelled utterings of the Press, which are glorious distinc- 




18 


tions of the present era. The very life of the world has become, in its ten¬ 
dencies, and almost in its realities, the exhibition of freedom on the grand¬ 
est scale. Public opinion is everywhere, and inevitably, tending to free¬ 
dom. A knowledge of the rights of the individual, and a sense of his 
importance cannot but be the result of the hurrying to and fro of the na¬ 
tions, and their meeting and mingling in friendly intercourse in the great 
marts of mankind. All this is familiar reflection, and doubtless there is 
much justice in its conclusions. I cannot, however, leave this topic with¬ 
out reverting, for a moment, to one prominent circumstance in our his¬ 
tory. Who can have failed to note, in the consideration of this subject, 
how far above the petty sectional and party questions of the day, stand 
the purposes and motives in which originated this Union. Did not the 
same sectional causes of difference exist then, as now ? How did the men 
of’76 and ’89 deal with them? Did they consider them of such para¬ 
mount importance as to outweigh the Union ?—you know that on the con¬ 
trary, no other question was regarded as of any importance, except as sec¬ 
ondary to its preservation. How comes it, my young friends, that the 
Union is now held so cheap!—that we seem intent on stretching every 
cord that holds it together, as if to test how much they will bear with'* 
out snapping! Is it not because, elated with prosperity, our minds are 
diverted from the illustrious examples of our conscript Fathers. Let us 
turn once more to those unfailing oracles. Let us not forget the great¬ 
ness of the trust reposed in us! Let us remember that th q permanency of 
the Union is the experiment which we are making ! Let us be sensible 
of the superior importance, above all other questions and considerations, 
of preserving its integrity! The peculiar institutions of a portion of the 
country, are evils of a: subordinate degree, and no pretensions to states¬ 
manship can be admitted which do not embrace this as the primary el¬ 
ement. Time, interest and advancing civilization will carry that pecu¬ 
liar race into the distant South, preparatory to their return to their oris 
ginal home, just as certainly as the waters of the Mississippi are 
drained into the Gulf. It is impossible in the nature of things that two 
distinct races can for any great period co-exist on this continent. With 
the landing of the Pilgrims, and the earliest settlement on the James 
Liver, began the gradual disappearance of the Indian; and as settle¬ 
ment and civilization advanced, his track has been from his native 
hunting grounds towards the setting sun. In the excess of their pros¬ 
perity, both New England and the South, arc prone to undervalue the 
Union, a&d to suppose they should flourish as well without it. They are 
committing a great *nd lamentable mistake. They would be shorn of 
their consideration among the nations of the world, and their power 
too would consequently be gone. Let them decide whether the insig¬ 
nificant evils under which they now complain, are at all comparable to 




19 


thoso which they should then be called upon to endure. If they cannot 
now adjust their sectional differences within the Union, what proba¬ 
bility is there that they will have better success, when split into a 
dozen petty states, where the causes of disunion will be multiplied in¬ 
definitely, from the exclusiveness of local systems, and the absence of a 
common tie. 

It depends, I believe, above all other things, under Providence, upon 
the education or training which is given to the young, how long shall 
be the duration of this grand and beautiful fabric. I allude not so 
much to the mere training of the school or recitation room, though this 
is a great and essential portion, but to that larger and still more useful 
education which is conducted at home, and in society. It is all import¬ 
ant that the young mind should be secured.from the contagion of evil 
example. Juvenal s admonition is as pertinent now as when first ut* 
tered. It is all important that it should learn a docile submission to 
wholesome discipline. That it should be accustomed from the earliest 
years to contemplate the best examples of excellence that it should 
thus be brought to the comprehension of the social and relative du- 
tiesj to the understanding of justice and a love of its exercise;—and to 
feel deep reverence for law. This, with proper instruction in the liis- 
fcory, the foundation, and practical working of our government, and with 
such accomplishments of speech and of writing as shall enable you best 
to explain and to defend the truth, would seem to form the best prepa¬ 
ration for the future citizen. 

With this training and with the knowledge .which it is permitted you 
to acquire within these walls, you may emerge into the world and aspire, 
with well founded hope, to the high places of society, and a full share 
of the honors and prizes of life. v 

My young friends! there are a few elements of character, without 
tho possession of which, no one can become successful or eminently 
great. These are truth, knowledge, decision, and perseverance. With 
these qualities failure is impossible, whether as regards individual pros* 
perity, or the discharge of those grave and responsible duties which, as 
freemen and the descendants of ficemen, it is incumbent upon you to 
meet. 

I would enjoin upon you to study well the signs and tendencies of 
the times. It is of importance to ascertain, if possible, what is tho 
mission of our age and country, and what is our individual part in tho 
promotion of that mission. It cannot fail to strike us that this is a 
highly practical age, and that every thing is valued with reference to 
its immediate applicability to the demands of society. It is, however, 
not to be forgotten, that the great superiority of the times in which we 
live to thoso which haye gone before, in these various aspects in which 




20 


we have traced it, is because the study of principles has been prosecuted 
more widely, and with deeper research* Nor let it be supposed that the 
field is by any means exhausted. While the business of society may be 
expected to consist chiefly in the application of that which is already , 
known; yet it is also to be remembered that some of the greatest dis- j 
coveries and inventions are those of very recent date. TV hile therefore 
the triumphs of modern genius must bo gathered from the extension 
to new theatres of that which is known and approved, still new achieve¬ 
ments will reward the studies and toils of the persevering; and some of 
them, now in embryo, will, when promulgated, revolutionize the habi" :| 
tudes of society. But on those tracks, on which the various pursuits 
of the world are now moving, eat is the demand for educated 

skill! What numbers of learned and a are still needed to res¬ 

cue the learned professions from the Opprobium oi quackery, chicanery, 

^nd cant ! and what numbers by those constructions, involving the 
principles of science, which are necessary for the easy intercourse of all | 
parts of this continent,—with truns-oceanic lands and the isles of the 
sea ! These constructions are to go hand in hand with our commerce, 
in advance of our institutions, to the now untenanted wastes of the new 
world, North and South, and wherever these institutions obtain a foot¬ 
ing, they will work their way. Wherever they move, their civilizing 
effects will be seen in that -wonderful elevation of the masses of our 
fellow beings, which forms the most glorious and happy distinction of 
this Federal Union. 

The time has gone by, perhaps forever, for the erection of those great 
structures, whose ruins have come down to us from antiquity, gad 
monuments of the waste of human effort. TVe shall no more build 
Pyramids, and Hanging Gardens, nor rear again those glories minsters 
and cathedrals, which it required the unintermitted labours of centuries 
to complete. We shall be sparing henceforth in the erection of columns 
and triumphal arches. Yet will the demands of our republican institu¬ 
tions, of science, and of religion call into being architectural structures 
which shall rival those of the Parthenon and the temple of Theseus, 
and many a city, of little less splendour than Thebes and Babylon, will 
yet on this continent lift its proud turrets to heaven. Yast is the field 
yet open, for the exercise of art in its higher departments, and the 
grand events of our history are yet to find expression in the forms and 
groupings of sculpture, and bo made to live again in the happy 
creations of the pencil. Our national peculiarities, and social charact¬ 
eristics and manners, are also, with each generation of our progress, 
still to find embodiment in a living literature. 

When, to your ardent imaginations, I suggest all these as proper 
subjects for your labours, and mention in addition, that great task, 



21 


which we have yet to accomplish, of regenerating by the infusion of 
democratic ideas and sentiments,—not as revolutionary propagandists, 
but by the silent, yet all powerful force of a great example,—the effete 
and exhausted governments of Europe, can it be said that the present 
time lacks inducements to aspiration and effort! On the contrary, 
your reflections will probably bring you to a concurrence with mo in 
the conviction, that those inducements were never so great, so numer¬ 
ous, so noble. The prizes which they hold out may be harder to gain, 
but they are greater still in proportion to the labour of attainment. 
You are now here, young gentlemen, to make your preparation for that 
labour, within the hallowed precints of the temple of science. Her 
resplendent portals are flung widely open. Most of you have already 
crossed the vestibule, and are quietly threading her aisles, or lingering 
in her recesses. Let me enjoin you to tread there with a firm step and 
a determined purpose, and, ere you take your departure, to seize those 
talismans which I have just pressed on your attention,—truth, knowl¬ 
edge, decision, and perseverance. As the light of the morning sun is 
necessary to the daily toils of mortals, so these high qualities alone can 
conduct you successfully up the steep acclivities of a useful life and an 
honorable fame. 



























































$ 





♦ 











































































> 


I 






c 























* 











V 
















6 


SPEECH 


OF 

HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 

i \ ' 

’ OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


BEFORE 


THE GREAT DEMOCRATIC MASS MEETING 


WAYNESBURG, GREENE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, 


AUGUST ai, 1856. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
1867. 

















. 




■ 









. ■ ■ ■ • :> ■ *' *‘O k ■ < > a a; o roiT r t. 





SPEECH 


Fellow-citizens: 

Never on any occasion have I arisen be¬ 
fore an assembly of my fellow-country-men 
so impressed with the importance of the con¬ 
test which draws us together. The crisis so 
long portended by the progress of events has 
at length actually arrived. The continued 
expression of unfriendly sentiments, and the 
continued repetition of unfriendly acts, by one 
section of our common country in relation 
to the institutions of another, has at length 
brought about that unhappy condition in our 
domestic relations which our true statesmen 
have long predicted, and which the patriot has 
always feared. In inquiring by what causes 
and agencies this condition of affairs has been 
produced, it is not my purpose to condemn 
indiscriminately the motives of any class or 
political division of my fellow citizens. I am 
willing to allow much for honesty of intention, 
where I must at the same time condemn the 
wisdom of the conduct, and while I have cen¬ 
sure, broad and summary, for those who have 
been the guilty leaders to deplorable results, 
I admit that the inquiry of transcendant impor¬ 
tance is how we may escape from the results, 
and how retrieve that former position of glorious 
security and fraternal harmony in which we 
were wont to feel a common pride and a com¬ 
mon felicity ? 

To the sober reason of reflecting men there 
is, indeed, nothing more amazing and con¬ 
founding than that unaccountable madness, 
which for a time seems to run through a whole 
community, by which the general mind is lifted 
from its poise, and made to see things through 
a distorted medium. It is not without much 
artifice and persevering labor on the part of 
those who have assumed the offices of popular 
leaders, that they have thus been able to warp 
the public mind from its propriety, and to in¬ 


fuse into it that subtle posion which is now dis¬ 
playing itself in efforts of irregular and convul¬ 
sive excitement and a singular forgetfulness of 
paramount obligations. 

Could the causes of the internal distraction 
which at this time afflicts these States be com¬ 
municated for the first time to one unaffected 
by any prejudice of feeling or judgment in re¬ 
gard to them, I apprehend that in view of such 
an one there could be no instance more fla¬ 
grant of national folly. Could we evoke from 
the glorious slumber in which they repose the 
spirits of the great men who presided at the 
origin of the Government, could we call up 
Hancock and Warren and Lee and Rutledge and 
Henry and Washi ngton, what would be their feel¬ 
ings and opinions in view of a contest waged 
upon such principles as this ? Would they not 
blush and hide their noble heads for shame for 
the degeneracy of their descendants, which 
could peril on a question like that of negro 
slavery the existence of a State which is the 
proudest boast of all time. 

The nature of the present contest is indeed 
unparalleled. No precedent is found in all our 
past political history for any tactics which shall 
be applicable now. Ever heretofore we have 
all aimed, by whatever different systems of 
policy, and struggled as brethren, and without 
sectional distinctions, for the greatness and * 
prosperity of a common country with which we 
have felt our own and the happiness of our 
descendants to be identified. The efforts made 
by a few discontented and reckless politicians 
in different parts of the country to rear a sec¬ 
tional banner, were always met by the indig¬ 
nant contempt of an insulted community. 
Ever heretofore, if the question was whether 
the financial affairs of the nation should be 
managed through a national bank or an 
independent treasury; whether the currency 










4 


of the country were better constituted of paper 
or the prefious metals; whether revenue 
should be raised by the imposition of duties 
upon imports or by direct taxes—whether the 
protection of domestic manufactures and the 
prosecution of internal improvements fall 
within the legitimate powers of the general 
Government, or whether these should more 
wisely be left to the inventive genius and 
enterprising spirit of the people, and the 
resources of the separate States—upon which¬ 
ever of these issues the politics of the country 
were made for the time to hinge, the strife 
was still for the welfare’, the prosperity, and 
happiness of the whole country. No mis¬ 
chievous and insidious distinctions of North 
and South—no recognition of a line of policy 
for one section which was not adapted to 
another, is to be found in any of these issues; 
and no public man who represented any con¬ 
siderable portion of the public sentiment, 
dared, either in the Capitol or before the peo¬ 
ple, coolly to discuss the value of the Union, 
or give utterance to a single expression in its 
disparagement. 

But, alas, the change! Is, then, the race of 
patriots and of sages passed away? Has there 
been any change in the relations of the various 
parts of the confederacy which releases in any 
degree the present generation from its obliga¬ 
tions for the preservation of the Union? Has 
there been any change to authorize any abate¬ 
ment of those sentiments of veneration for the 
Union and its founders which we cherished 
with our earliest teachings? Is the Union 
really less valuable now than it has been at any 
time heretofore? Can the two great sections 
of which it is composed in fact subsist without 
it, and is it better for each to have separate 
nationalities? Can two great republics flour¬ 
ish in immediate contiguity upon the American 
continent, and are we indeed reconciled to the 
hazardous experiment? The men of ’76 flat¬ 
tered themselves they were accomplishing a 
work which should inure to the benefit of 
their descendants for a time to which they 
were unwilling to admit a limit, not even that 
of the popular governments of Greece and 
Rome. They hoped rather that the admirable 
system which they left for their successors 
should endure for all time. They were men 
whom the world have agreed to praise for their 
unparalleled wisdom and disinterested patriot¬ 


ism. But, alas, for our independence if its 
noblest fruit—the Federal Constitution—is to 
be openly violated and trampled in the dust! 
Has it then come to this? Have the glories 
of the American Union culminated so soon? 
Have those illustrious lights indeed grown dim 
and feeble in the overpowering radiance of 
more recent luminaries? Have we at length 
the miserable satisfaction of knowing that our 
patriot fathers were mistaken ? Have we dis¬ 
covered that their wisdom was but folly—that 
the Constitution is a failure—that it is the 
legal sanction of injustice—and that there is a 
law above its letter and spirit, which authorizes 
us to regard its written injunctions and inhibi¬ 
tions, as no more than the counsels of well 
meaning dupes? And if we are sure of all 
this, are we also sure that we shall be able to 
control that fiery and capricious spirit of revo¬ 
lution whose incipient and reckless steps we 
discern in these sectional movements ? How 
far do we propose to go? Where shall we 
stop ; and can we stop there? Will the change 
stop with the disruption of the Union in two 
republics, or will it fall into other hands than 
those of political schemers, who started it for 
the accomplishment of a selfish and temporary 
purpose—into those of military chiefs, who 
will avail themselves of the opportunity to 
perpetuate their power; and will thus the 
Republi 9 be fritted down into a miserable and 
petty despotism? 

These are the truly momentous issues which 
you are called upon to decide in this contest. 
The restoration of the Missouri compromise, 
which is now the rallying cry, is a mere excuse. 
Did the parties who demand it agitate any the 
less while it existed, and would they agitate 
the less were it restored to-morrow? In 1848, 
after the acquisition of California and our 
Mexican territories, it was proposed in Con¬ 
gress for the sake of peace and quiet to ex¬ 
tend the line of 36° 30' to the Pacific Ocean, 
but at the mention of which the howl of the 
Giddingses and the Hales went forth from the 
Capitol in tones so terrible as to u make night 
hideous.” 

With the principles upon which that agita¬ 
tion proceeds who of us can, upon deliberate 
conviction, entertain any sympathy? What 
is its aim, if any definite aim it has ? If any 
such it can have, it is neither more or less 
than the emancipation of the entire black 











5 


race, and its exaltation to an equality with the 
whites in all social and political rights and 
privileges. Is there anything in such a scheme 
of policy worthy the name of statesmanship? 
And are the distinctions impressed by the 
hands of the Creator himself so easily wiped 
away? The idea of amalgamation is indeed 
too repulsive to be dwelt upon. That four 
millions of a colored population can be in 
any way incorporated with and insensibly 
lolt in the white race, is inconsistent with 
those prejudices implanted by nature for wise 
purposes, and, could it be accomplished, would 
end in the permanent deterioration of the white 
race. We are bound, therefore, upon every 
principle of common reason, to suppose that 
such cannot be the object of this agitation. In 
what other way do they propose to benefit that 
race ? We have never yet heard of any project 
on the part of these especial friends of the 
black man for his restoration to Africa. On 
the contrary, they have done all in their power, 
by paralysing in a very great degree the benefi¬ 
cent plans of colonization, to discourage the 
idea of such a restoration. 

But it will be pretended that this agitation 
does not proceed upon the idea of a superior 
regard for the black race, but rather on that 
of preserving or securing our unoccupied ter¬ 
ritory from the institutions of slavery. This, 
which is no doubt the view of the greater part 
of the supporters of anti-slavery, or opponents 
of Democratic measures, brings us to the sys¬ 
tem of legislation which is but recent, and 
which is admitted to be identified with the pol¬ 
icy which we uphold. The defense of the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska bill is to be found in its entire 
accordance with the theory of a Democratic 
republic. We maintain that the idea that the 
interests of slavery gain anything by such an 
arrangement is a mere illusion. It overlooks 
entirely the great determining elements in all 
such cases of the adaptation of soil, climate, 
and other favorable circumstances of condition, 
as well as the relative productiveness of free 
and slave labor. These conditions constitute 
a law of nature, imposed with far more rigor 
and certainty than any geographical line or 
Missouri restriction. 

The principle of the Nebraska-Kansas bill, 
which is the recognition of the right of the 
people to form their own government accord¬ 
ing to the will of the majority subject only to the 


Constitution of the United States, is a principle 
which lies at the basis of all our institutions. 
It is the same which built us up from feeble 
colonies into wealthy and important provinces, 
and which occasioned our resistance to British 
tyranny and led to the establishment of Ameri¬ 
can nationality. By virtue of that principle it 
is that the States of the Union and the confed¬ 
eracy everywhere exhibit laws framed upon 
principles of equality and justice, and admin¬ 
istered by tribunals characterized by intelli¬ 
gence and virtue ; that the productive energies 
of the nation have produced such fruits in agri¬ 
culture, manufactures, and commerce; that 
the works of American invention are sought 
for their admitted superiority by the most en¬ 
lightened nations of Europe. All these, and 
more than I have space to enumerate, are the 
wonderful results of the principle as displayed 
in our government and institutions, and whose 
successful working cannot be denied without 
the assertion that the experiment of a Republic 
is a failure. 

Prior to the passage of the Missouri compro¬ 
mise in 1820, the representation of the North 
and South in Congress was nearly poised, and 
the history of the events, of the day shows con¬ 
clusively that the contest which resulted in the 
passage of that act was one for power, politi¬ 
cal power, entirely regardless of the interest or 
welfare of the slave. It was the effort to ob¬ 
tain the political direction of the country and 
the control of its legislation, to shape its policy 
in the building up of sectional interests by the 
adoption of measures protective of manufac¬ 
tures, internal improvements, and commerce 
and navigation, and by the appropriation of 
the resources of the national Treasury, which 
led to the fierceness of that struggle and 
seduced Congress into an over stretch of its 
powers in order to quiet the tremendous excite¬ 
ment. The question having been put to rest 
for the time by the acquiesence of the nation 
in that adjustment, the slave did not as yet 
in his domestic relations attract any special 
regard from the North, and the efforts of the 
southern philantrophists for the amelioration of 
his condition were ardently continued up to as 
late as 1852, when the fierceness of the abolition 
aggression arrested and defeated their progress. 

In the third of a century which has elapsed 
since the law of 1820, State after State north 
of the line of slavery has been added to the 









6 


confederacy, each contributing to swell the 
influence of the free States, and in the aggre¬ 
gate to establish largely their numerical supe¬ 
riority in the popular branch of the national 
Legislature. The question of political power 
has thus been fully settled, but the excitement 
which was begun for extensive political objects 
has since passed into fanaticism, and who were 
abolitionists from over-wrought benevolence 
have become the prey of demagogues who 
continue the agitation for their individual ben¬ 
efit in the attainment of power and place, 
to the prejudice of the country, and at the 
sacrifice of its peace and the stability of its in¬ 
stitution. The progress of time showed in the 
continuance of the abolition excitement the 
total inefficiency of the act of 1820, and its un¬ 
constitutionality having been almost univer¬ 
sally conceded, Congress possessed the clear 
right which it exercised in the passage of the 
bill for the organization of the Territories of 
Nebraska and Kansas, to repeal the same and 
vindicate the Constitution by the restoration 
of the true doctrine and thus to remove the 
question from their deliberations. We insist, 
therefore, that the wild excitement which has 
run through the country upon this subject is a 
delusion. It has no genuine basis. It cannot 
be sincere. It has been raised and is sup¬ 
ported by such leaders as Sumner, Giddings, 
and others, by whom it is used only as a spe¬ 
cious decoy to elevate or continue in power its 
unscrupulous authors. 

Besides the Anti-Slavery, Free-Soil, and 
Republican parties, and the Fusion or Black 
Republican, made up of the two latter, another 
division of politicians antagonistic to the 
principles of the Democratic party is that of 
the Know-Nothing party. Their two most 
important principles are those of hostility to 
foreigners and to all who profess the Catholic 
religion. But whence has arisen this idea of 
a crusade against the civil and religious rights 
of so large and respectable a portion of our 
fellow citizens, for it is in vain that we shall 
scrutinize the writings of the fathers of the con¬ 
federacy for any sentiment so utterly abhor¬ 
rent to these principles which breathes in the 
Declaration of Independence, and live through 
every line of the Constitution. 

A movement somewhat similar was once in¬ 
deed atte mpted soon after the Government went 
into operation. The celebrated alien act was 


passed in 1798, in the first year of the admin¬ 
istration of John Adams ; and though this 
measure was adopted when the public mind 
was justly in a high state of excitement against 
France, for many injuries and indignities, yet 
this was not sufficient to reconcile the people 
to the palpable injustice of legislation which 
created an oppressive distinction against for¬ 
eigners. The result was, the unequivocal con¬ 
demnation of that policy in the signal over¬ 
throw of the Federal administration, and the 
elevation to the vacant dignities of the Repub¬ 
lican party under Mr. Jefferson. 

In view of the great services rendered by 
foreigners in our revolutionary struggle, the 
ingratitude of any measure which should con¬ 
template a selfish exclusiveness, was indignantly 
rejected by the honest patriotism of our ances¬ 
tors. No odious discrimination against their 
adopted brethern could be tolerated. In their 
view our liberties and institutions were not of 
that feeble character that they needed the de¬ 
fense of laws designed to bring into odium any 
portion of their fellow-citizens, to whatever 
land, unblessed by the light of freedom, they 
might owe the accident of their birth. The ratio 
of the foreign to the native population could 
not have been less then than now, nor could 
any imagined dangers from such a source have 
been less. Notwithstanding this our fathers 
deemed the principles of freedom as guaran¬ 
tied by the inimitable features of our republi¬ 
can system of that degree of excellence that 
any slight misapprehension of their nature by 
those not previously accustomed to their enjoy¬ 
ment, would speedily work its own cure. Lib¬ 
erty and equality, under the due regulation of 
law, with the avenues of social and political 
position alike open to all, they well knew to 
be elevating and ennobling principles, and they 
deemed that the natural impulse which prompts 
every man to study the welfare of his posterity 
would form a safeguard of inestimable value, 
and which might be safely trusted to preserve 
the political rectitude of the adopted citizen. 
So our fathers thought, and the result has 
proven the wisdom of their conclusions. 

Another element in the composition of thii 
Know-Nothing party, is that which discrimi¬ 
nates against a portion of our fellow-citizens 
on account of their religious tenets. It boldly 
proclaims to the world and challenges a con¬ 
test upon that issue, that Roman Catholics are 












7 


unfit for official position, and are disqualified 
by their principles from participating in the 
Government of the country. It is pretended 
that by their principles secretly entertained, 
though publicly they are permitted to disavow 
them, they acknowledge a superior allegiance 
to the Roman See. While we have seen no 
evidence of this, and while by the purest and 
best men of that denomination such preten¬ 
sions on behalf of the Papal power are entirely 
disavowed, the characters of certain of the 
most distinguished coadjutors in the work of 
our revolution is an abundant guarantee of 
their falsity. Is it for a moment to be credited 
that the mind of a Baltimore, of a Carroll, of 
Carrollton, or a Layfayette, could ever have 
admitted claims so destructive of national in¬ 
dependence? But grant that Roman Catholics 
may be prejudiced against Protestant institu¬ 
tions, that they may sympathize with every¬ 
thing Catholic in the old country. Grant that 
their reverence for Papal authority may be of 
that profound degree as to incline them to a 
willing obedience to its injunctions, however 
unfavorable to Republican institutions and 
government, yet what is their proportion to the 
mass of their fellow-citizens? In 1850 the 
whole Roman Catholic population in the Uni¬ 
ted States was only 1,200,000, one half of 
whom, it may reasonably be supposed, are of 
native origin, born and reared under the influ¬ 
ence of freedom, which having thus imbibed 
the taste will remain with them forever. That is 
a baptism to which there can be no infidelity. 
They may recognise their religious duties as 
Roman Catholics, but they will never accord 
to the Pope any other than a spiritual authority, 
and that too in matters within his spiritual 
province. They will allow him, perhaps the 
last decision of a question respecting the im¬ 
maculate conception; but in a question of gov¬ 
ernmental forms and institutions they will 
assert a right to their own opinions and choice. 
But allowing a blind and superstitious rever¬ 
ence for the Holy Father may incline his fol¬ 
lowers to accept in all things, even his wishes 
as laws, and that these may be sometimes, 
unfriendly to the interests of freedom, yet what, 
let me ask, will Roman Catholics ever be able 
to accomplish with the argus eyes of more 
than 25,000,000 of jealous Protestants upon 
them. 

During our c.olonial existence religious per¬ 


secution was not unknown among us. Peopled 
by refugees from persecution in the Old World, 
it is not strange that its fell spirit should fol¬ 
low them to this; and thus in the infancy of 
our settlements there was little charity of feel¬ 
ing between the Plymouth adventurers or with 
the Quakers of Philadelphia and the settlers 
of Jamestown and St. Mary’s; or between the 
Huguenots of Carolina and the Catholics of 
Florida and Louisiana^ But the difficult cir¬ 
cumstances of the settlers demanding all their 
energies for the success of their enterprises— 
constantly menaced by hostile savages, soon 
diverted the minds of the colonists from the 
persecution of their fellows. The perception 
of a common danger and a common interest 
soon displaced the unnatural irritation, and 
feelings of mutual respect and attachment 
gradually succeeded. Thus at the date of the 
union the fires of religious fanaticism may be 
said to have died out in the colonies, and the 
happy period of universal toleration seemed at 
length to have arrived. But why this retro¬ 
grade movement again conducted through the 
agency of secret orders? Do we so soon tire 
of the kindly offices of fraternal regard; and 
are we at length driven to discard the hope of 
human perfectability, and to settle in the con¬ 
viction of the satanical philosopher, who de¬ 
clared that u the natural state of mankind is a 
state of war?” 

Is danger still apprehended from the in¬ 
crease of Catholic influence? Look at Rome 
herself, in age and decreptitude, throned amid 
ruins, and with decay all around her 1 Look 
at the history of the Roman Catholic settle¬ 
ments in Maryland, Florida, Louisiana, and 
the Canadas! That history illustrates that, 
whether from their inherent nature or the cir¬ 
cumstances by which they are surrounded, 
inertness has been the character of those set¬ 
tlements. They have been circumscribed and 
paralyzed by the active influences around 
them, and have presented no appreciable 
obstruction to the onward march of Protest¬ 
ant intelligence and energy. Shall any of 
us, after this review, refuse j|stice to Roman 
Catholics from dread of their increasing 
power? The idea of such an extended Cath¬ 
olic influence arising in this country as shall 
prove destructive of our political institutions, 
is indeed about as reasonable as that lately 
promulgated by Miss Murry, maid of honor to 










8 


Queen Victoria, who, in a work written upon 
this country, expresses her fears that the Mor¬ 
mon custom of a plurality of wives is in dan¬ 
ger of spreading throughout the States. 

It is to be esteemed a most fortunate cir¬ 
cumstance that the admirable institutions 
which we enjoy, did not owe their origin to 
any single religious sect, but that the Cavalier 
and the Roundhead—the disciple of Calvin, of 
Loyola, and of Penn—met here upon the sim¬ 
ple platform of equal civil and religious rights, 
and agreed to sink their peculiarities and pre¬ 
judices of sect, and to unite on a government 
which should serve for the common protection 
of all. In the revolution the blood of all 
freely mingled for the establishment of our 
independence; and the Federal Constitution 
was the solemn compact that the demon per¬ 
secution should no more unsheath her bloody 
sword, nor rekindle her accursed fires. No 
Holy Brotherhood, with inquisitorial instru¬ 
ments of torture, was ever more, in this free 
and happy land, to assemble in dark conclave, 
and interfere with the rights of conscience in 
any—the Episcopalian was never more to per¬ 
secute the Puritan, nor the Puritan the Quaker. 
Such, I say, was the spirit in which our Gov¬ 
ernment was framed; and when we depart 
from that spirit by setting up a religious test of 
qualifications for the exercise of civil rights, 
we become traitors to the memory of our 
fathers. 

And now, my friends, after this hasty review 
of the relative position of the Democracy and 
the opposition forces in regard to the princi¬ 
ples at issue between us, let us cast a glance 
at the magnitude of the interests which are im¬ 
periled by the unnatural warfare which is now 
waged by the factions opposed to them. How 
great in all the elements which constitute a 
prosperous and mighty state is this confederacy. 
A population for the most part homogeneous, 

: and of the best specimens of the Teutonic and 
i Celtic races—with a territory of boundless ex- 
: tent, and a variety of soil and climate adapted 
: to almost every species of production; with 
] lakes, rivers, mountains, and plains, all upon 
1 the most liberal scale which a benificent nature 
] has anywhere displayed; with the State gov- 
( ernments for the protection of local and do¬ 
mestic interests and the administration of jus- 
$ tice, and a National Government with special 
i and limited powers for the care of our relations 


as States, and those which we bear to other 
nations ; with the wisest distribution of powers, 
balances, and restrictions ; the greatest equity 
in relation to personal rights and the rights of 
the constituent States, and the best guarantees 
for the preservation of both. The means for 
the religious, moral, and intellectual training 
of the common mind, beyond what any other 
people have ever possessed; all circumstances 
and causes conspire to invite us to a career of 
virtuous prosperity, such as no nation, however 
favored, has ever hitherto enjoyed. The field 
is vast indeed, vast beyond our capacity to real¬ 
ize, for the exercise of the mighty energies of 
this restless nineteenth century, in the peace¬ 
ful triumphs over the obstacles of nature, and 
in bringing the life of man into harmony with 
the physical and moral laws of his being. What 
is there to interrupt our march toward the con¬ 
summation of that sublime spectacle, a nation 
everywhere beloved and respected above all 
others for its power, and still more for its 
justice—leading the age in the wisdom of its 
political and social institutions, in efforts of 
commercial enterprise, and in the useful and 
liberal arts—without a source of complaint on 
the part of any individual on account of per¬ 
sonal oppression or privatio^ of any of his 
rights; with the full development of the re¬ 
sources of a mighty country contributing in 
the degree—great indeed, yet in which it was 
manifestly intended by the creator—to the 
general comfort and felicity of the world. 
What but these internal dissensions break up 
these fraternal relations which should subsist 
between all the members of the same political 
community, in order that general happiness 
may be the result, turning the energies and 
capacities which should be exercised for the 
common welfare to the purpose of mutual 
annoyance. 

This disturbance, if not already at the height, 
calls aloud for the efforts of every lover of his 
country to arrest its progress toward that fatal 
result. Let every such pause before he en¬ 
courages further, for any selfish design of 
whatever subtle demagogue, under whatever 
specious pretext of philanthropy or excessive 
regard for his species, the movements of par¬ 
ties formed upon partial principles, which con¬ 
template the advancement of sectional interests 
only, and which openly contemn the provisions 
of our common bond of union. 














9 


It must be plain to every intelligent and 
I honest inquirer after the truth that the Demo. 
[ cratic is at this time the only party which upon 
[ this great national issue stands unaffected with 
any taint of corruption, and is sound to the 
core. Look the history of that party. Is 
there anything almost which has in an eminent 
I degree conduced to the greatness, the welfare 
I and happiness or the honor of the nation which 
has not owed its origin to that party? The 
charter of our independence sprang from the 
pen of Jefferson, and that by which our Re¬ 
publican liberties were established and their 
preservation secured was the work of the wise 
and excellent Madison, both Democrats whom 
it is ever safe to follow. It has been under 
Democratic principles and policy that the cen¬ 
tralizing tendencies of our Federal system have 
been successfully resisted, and the rights of 
the States duly preserved; that the General 
Government has been restricted to the exercise 
of its legitimate powers and the dangers of a 
latitudinarian policy avoided ; that the finances 
of the nation have been rescued from the con¬ 
trol of a collossal and irresponsible corpora¬ 
tion, and managed through its own agents with 
safety, cheapness, convenience, and satisfac¬ 
tion to the public; that the imposition of duties 
upon foreign products has been made with ref¬ 
erence chiefly to revenue, while within the rev¬ 
enue limit adequate protection has been given 
to American industry and skill; and that works 
of internal improvemnt have been wisely re¬ 
linquished by the General Government and 
left to the resources of private capital and State 
enterprise. It has been under Democratic 
administrations that our National Territory has 
come to embrace the Floridas and Louisiana 
and Texas, and has been extended till the 
semi-barbarous lands of New Mexico and Cal¬ 
ifornia and have been brought under the radi¬ 
ance of our national aegis. The Democracy 
have ever contended for a pure and honest 
administration of the Constitution, regardless 
of sectional clamor ; and, faithful to their hon¬ 
orable antecedents, they have sought by the 
Kansas and Nebraska acts to remove from the 
statute book of the nation a restriction unjust 
in itself and for whose imposition no legal 
authority existed. 

There is one other point of view in which I 
desire to present this subject, and I have done. 
We, in these United States, are everywhere 


communities made up of classes which have 
all a great personal interest at stake. Next 
to the secure enjoyment of the right of per¬ 
sonal liberty, which we justly prize above all 
others, is the secure enjoyment of our private 
acquisitions made in the regular course of in¬ 
dustry subservient to law. Experience and 
observation alike teach us that there is nothing 
so conducive to individual and public pros¬ 
perity and happiness, as the free and unmo¬ 
lested pursuit and secure enjoyment of private 
property. Yet do Ve ever reflect how slow 
has been the progress of that right to the per 
fection in which it exists with us? True, it 
has for centuries constituted one of the prin¬ 
cipal objects of the laws of England as laid 
down by Blackstone. True, it was one of the 
guarantees contained in Magna Charta. True, 
it was guarantied by the petition of rights to 
which the assent of Charles I was extorted by 
the Commons, and that it was still further se¬ 
cured by the declaration of rights at the revo¬ 
lution of 1688 . But practically, what after all 
was this security? Was it not the very ques¬ 
tion which brought Charles I to the block? It 
was the assumption of the British Government 
of the right to take our property without our 
consent, which led to the separation of the 
colonies and occasioned the erection of our 
municipal and Federal governments with new 
guarantees for that and all other rights. What 
is the right of property in other countries of 
Europe ? Do we find, for instance, in France, 
in Austria, in the States of Italy, that free spirit 
of enterprise in acquisition, and that security 
for enjoyment, when acquired, of which as 
Americans we are so justly proud? France, 
indeed, may read us a powerful lesson, for she 
set out, after having got rid, by the summary 
process of bloody revolution, of all the abuses 
of her old regal system, and undertook to frame 
a Government which should perfectly secure 
the citizen in every right which can belong 
to man in a state of society. But how has 
she succeeded? From the errors and uncer¬ 
tainties of ill-directed effort we have seen her 
again and again seek refuge in the quietude of 
Imperial chains. 

Will not such a glance at existing facts teach 
us how to prize the privileges which we possess 
in the superior justice and equality of our in¬ 
stitutions and frame of Government, and render 
us anxious for their stability? Will they not 







10 


instruct us in the danger of parting with the 
substance in pursuit of the shadow? Shall we 
not learn, then, how rare a thing is a perfect 
government, and that if that of these States be 
not so, we may despair of ever beholding it. 

Let me appeal to you, men of commerce, for 
whom the steamer ploughs the wave, and the 
locomotive penetrates the mountain and the 
valley, who look to the stability of your Gov¬ 
ernment, her laws and institutions, for the sue-* 
cess of your ventures, and the continuance of 
a prosperous exchange. 1 appeal to you who 
spin and who weave, who forge and who fab¬ 
ricate a thousand objects of utility and elegance, 
manufacturers of whatever name, is it for you 
to part so readily with the solid advantages 
which you enjoy by doing aught to endanger, 
under whatever guise of a superior virtue, an 
order of things to which you owe so much. I 
appeal to you, tillers of the soil, among whom 
honesty, virtue, intelligence, and love of coun¬ 
try, make their especial abode, who could as 
soon dispense with the beautiful succession of 
the seasons as with the continuance unimpaired 
of a system which showers upon you such daily 
benefits, which is knit together with you habits 
of thgughtand your most ardent affections, % are 
you prepared to disturb the present harmony 
of our governmental structure, to cast it aside 
and seek in the crude and interested plans of 
extreme politicians the means of imparting to 
that structure a new efficacy unforeseen by 
your wise forefathers? 

To the great mass of you, my fellow citizens, 
it is of little importance which of half a dozen 
divisions of politicians have the offices of the 
country, but it does behoove you to look well 
to it that you do not, for the paltry purpose 
of gratifying an unbridled philanthropy and 
misdirected patriotism, risk the durability of 
interests which are of incalculable importance 
to you and your descendents. I pretend to no 
special gift of prophecy, and presume not to 
conjecture how far you may go in the deliberate 
violation of those principles upon which the 
confederacy was framed, and still its existence 
may be preserved. It is sufficient for me that 
j safety is found in that party which has always 
, aimed in the first place to preserve the cardi- 
• nal features of our system free from encroaeh- 
( ments, from whatever source. Evils or irregu¬ 
larities existing within the Government they 
, are willing to leave to the healing hand of 


time, confident that with its progress they will 
slough off as a disease with the general invig- 
oration of the system. Thus slavery, in the 
good time appointed by the Supreme Ruler, 
will be quietly put off without violence, but 
with a gently detaching hand—j|ist as nature, 
in the grateful change of the seasons, gradually 
lays aside the garb of winter, and passes into her 
glorious array of summer flowers and autumn 
fruits. And thus the African, now the mis¬ 
erable sport of a mock philanthropy, shall at 
length, when his true friends shall have been 
allowed to prosecute unimpeded their designs 
of benevolence, stand once more upon his 
native soil, and shall carry with him from his 
bondage the seeds of a Christian civilization 
which shall ripen into a glorious fruitage be¬ 
neath those tropical skies. 

Passing from the consideration of the prin¬ 
ciples involved in this contest, it remains for 
me to add a few words in regard to our can¬ 
didates. And here, as a Pennsylvanian, I 
acknowledge, and you will acknowledge with 
me, the pride and satisfaction inspired by the 
fact that the choice of the national democracy 
has at length fallen upon a distinguished citizen 
of our glorious old Commonwealth. If we 
have cause to be proud that our nominee is a 
son of Pennsylvania, we have not less cause 
of exultation that a union of his high personal 
qualities demands admiration, respect, and 
confidence. Born and nurtured in the bosom 
of Pennsylvania, we claim an especial right 
to an acquaintance with the development of 
his eminent abilities and their continued exer¬ 
cise on behalf of the people. Emerging into 
public life as a member of the bar, amidst a host 
of legal luminaries, the superiors of whom no 
country or time has witnessed—when Sergeant 
and Hopkins and M’Kean and Ross and Bald¬ 
win and Addison were still upon the stage—his 
powers were trained and directed in contact 
with such minds as theirs. His experience 
for more than a quarter of a century in the 
councils of the nation as a Senator, as Sec¬ 
retary of State, and foreign minister, accredi¬ 
ted to the two greatest of the European powers, 
in equal conflict with the most skilful diplo¬ 
matists of the age—has given him that politi¬ 
cal wisdom which if not always attainable, is 
yet always to be desired in the Chief Magis¬ 
trate of the Republic. On every theater on 
which they have been exerted, the luster of 


i 







his great talents have been seen and acknowl¬ 
edged wherever the English language is spoken 
and read. Nor is the purity of his private 
character inferior to his public reputation. 

The country is now about to manifest its 
gratitude for the distinguished public services 
■\yhich it has received at his hands. It will not 
forget in this contest the great value of those 
services in resisting the rise of sectionalism, 
in direct attacks upon the institution of slavery 
—or to an inflated paper currency, placing the 
wages of the laborer at the mercy of its expan¬ 
sions and contractions!—his opposition to the 
bank of the United States, and to the passage 
of a general bankrupt law!—and his noble 
advocacy of the annexation of Texas. The 
merchants of our seaport towns will not forget 
the importance of his labors while the repre¬ 
sentative of this country at the court of St. 
Petersburg, in securing for them by the first 
commercial treaty which we formed with the 
court, the trade of the Baltic and Black seas— 
and his recent maintenance, as minister to 
England, of our national rights in^the diplo¬ 
matic controversies carried on with that power 
in relation to the Central American and en¬ 
listment questions, have secured for him the 


ardent admiration and approval of his coun¬ 
trymen. 

Associated with the name of Mr. Buchanan 
in this contest, is that of John C. Breckinridge 
—a man who at a youthful age has shown 
talents of the highest order, and an ardent and 
able advocacy of popular principles. To me 
he is a familiar friend. We entered public 
life together when I met him for the first time 
in the national Capitol, one of the Represen¬ 
tatives of that lovely State which the Indian 
resigned with the keenest regret, and which 
still bears the memory of his struggles in its 
name of “the dark and bloody ground.” He 
came from that district of Kentucky so long 
represented by Henry Clay, who illustrated 
the largeness of his patriotism in embracing 
all classes of his fellow-citizens, by declaring 
upon one occasion that “Kentucky was the 
Ireland of America.” 

Our candidates are worthy of our cause, and 
the cause worthy of our most strenuous efforts. 
It is the cause of the Constitution and the 
Union, and all of our most valued institutions 
—of our very liberties and national existence. 
Let us be true to that cause, and victory cannot 
) fail to be the reward of our services. 






























X 

























. 
















7 


SPEECH 


HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


DELIVERED 


AT A DEMOCRATIC MASS MEETING 


NEW GENEVA, FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, 


SEPTEMBER 1, 1S60. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
1867 . 





















= ■ ' .I, 





SPEECH 


Friends and Fellow- Citizens: 

I am here by invitation to defend the Dem¬ 
ocratic party, its principles, and policy. The 
place is appropriate: Geneva, so named by 
Gallatin, in honor of his native city and lake 
of Switzerland, a land hallowed for centuries 
by its struggles in the cause of liberty, amid 
the romantic hills and by the classic waters of 
the Monongahela, standing above all in the 
midst of a people whose reliability has been 
often attested heretofore, and of whose Demo¬ 
cratic constancy and good will to me person¬ 
ally I have had ample proof. I feel that I am 
in the midst of associations at once elevating 
and agreeable. 

In the observations which I shall now ad¬ 
dress you, I shall only endeavor to take such 
a review as shall refresh our perceptions of 
important truths, and make clearer the path 
of duty. The contest is in defense of princi¬ 
ples which are identified with the permanence 
of our institutions. Those principles, though 
we have been enabled to maintain them in 
their integrity hitherto, yet continue to be 
assailed with undiminished hostility by a large 
number of our fellow-citizens. Whether they 
shall now succeed in obtaining possession of 
the Government and thus be enabled to carry 
out their destructive schemes of policy, will de¬ 
pend mainly upon the vigilance, the energy, 
and union of resolution, with which we, as 
Democrats, shall engage in the work before us. 

What is the present attitude of parties? On 
the one wing of the opposition is the Republi¬ 
can, having as its basis theories and doctrines 
unknown to the framers of our Government; 
a platform new-fangled and unauthorized, 
schemes of policy novel, impracticable, and 


dangerous. There is still the same old Dem¬ 
ocratic party, in whose ranks in many a battle 
hitherto we have contended and triumphed. 
To those who have heretofore acted with us, a 
glance at the same old banner, bearing the 
proud inscription of unchangeable principles, 
and a recollection of past victories, is alone 
sufficient to indicate the course which it is 
proper in the present circumstances to pursue. 
Opposed alike to investing any class with 
special privileges, and to exalting one section 
above another, in the past history of the party 
there is nothing which so preeminently distin¬ 
guishes it as its effort to administer the Gov- 
vernment with equal and exact justice to all, 
whether individuals or States, and whether 
in its foreign or domestic relations. 

Instead of the plain obligations of justice 
thus acknowledged and regarded by the Dem¬ 
ocratic party, what is it which the Republicans 
counsel us? They still propose to evade those 
obligations under the profession of devo¬ 
tion to a higher law than that of the national 
compact, and under the baseless assumption 
of an “irrepressible conflict” between the in¬ 
stitutions of the sections. These I have said 
are novelties not to be found in the code of 
political duties which was recognized by our 
fathers. Yet, one might be permitted to think, 
that so long as those maintaining these views 
refuse to terminate that allegiance to the Con¬ 
stitution in which they were born, as at any 
time it is permitted them to do, a true loyalty 
would counsel a faithful discharge of the duties 
which it imposes. For those institutions, the 
States of which their opponents are citizens 
are not responsible; and whatever n^ay be the 
opinion entertained by any one of tne moral 









character of those institutions, no more is 
asked of him than what especially, or by im¬ 
plication, he has engaged to perform. This, 
so long as he remains a citizen of these United 
States, he should feel it his bounden duty to 
do, as much as if his country having made 
treaties with Turkey and Morocco, he acknow¬ 
ledges the obligation to perform them so far as 
any act of his is concerned, though he may 
utterly abhor the piratical pursuits of the one 
and the polygamy of the other. For years 
past, unhappily, this same element of slavery 
has mingled in our national politics. It is 
main ly upon this issue that the contest is to be 
waged. The question is a fundamental one, 
and which it behooves every intelligent and 
conscientious voter carefully to investigate and 
thoroughly to comprehend. It began at the 
origin of the Constitution. In the Convention 
of 1787, whose deliberations resulted in the 
immortal instrument under which American 
nationality has been developed, the subject 
was examined and discussed in all its bearings 
immediate and remote, by the founders of the 
Republic. They were men who were not des-< 
titute of forecast, but who contemplated ex¬ 
actly what has occurred in regard to the expan¬ 
sion of the interests of free and slave Territory, 
and of the antagonistic attitude which, through 
the efforts of political adventurers, the sections 
might be made to bear one to another. They 
were men to whom, not less from the personal 
characters which they exhibited through the 
stern trials of the Revolution than from their 
position at a time antecedent to the rise of 
sectional parties, we are justly wont to attribute 
the most eminent wisdom and love of country. 
It is perfectly evident that if these illustrious 
men had been actuated by the supposed imme¬ 
diate interests of their respective sections, and 
their statesmanship had been two narrow to 
consult for the welfare of the whole country, 
we should never have had a Federal Union 
under free republican forms, and their names 
would never have stood forth high above all 
others, to challenge the veneration of posterity 
as the founders of the noblest of States. They 
have left us, however, an adjustment of that 
question, which they contemplated as final. 
This adj^ment is contained in the great char¬ 
ter which was the bright consummation of 


their labors. We ought not to forget that it 
was Washington who was the President of the j 
Convention of ’ 87, from which that great instru- 
ment emanated, and that upon his authority 
it was received as the offspring of mutual 
deference and concession, and was intended 
and supposed by its authors to be a final adjust¬ 
ment of the subjects of its provisions. But 
how is the slavery question disposed of by the 
Constitution? It is evident that that instru¬ 
ment, in guarantying a republican form of 
government to every State of the Union, and 
preserving entire silence in relation to slavery, 
as to every other characteristic of domestic 
institutions, designed to leave that institution 
where it appropriately belongs—to the people 
to be affected by it. Whether a State, as a 
municipal body, should deem her interests 
best promoted by African slavery or without 
it, was strictly her own affair, and no concern 
of the General Government. 

I trust the importance of the subject will ex¬ 
cuse me for entering with some little detail into 
the history and nature of slavery and its rela¬ 
tion to the Federal Government and to the 
States and Territories. I deem it, however, 
proper to state briefly what I conceive to be 
the essential facts of its history, and the posi¬ 
tion which, as a legal and constitutional ques¬ 
tion, it is entitled to hold. Setting out with 
the period when the original States were still 
under the old confederation, and when slavery 
existed in all, we find that Congress, by a res¬ 
olution of September 6, 1780, invited the States 
which had western territory to a cession of 
such territory to the General Government, to 
be disposed of by Congress. In compliance 
with the recommendation so made the States 
at different times until 1802, when Georgia 
completed the number, ceded their territories 
to the General Government. The Northwest 
Territory of Virginia was, by the ordinance of 
1787, organized into a distinct Territory, from 
which by a clause in its organic law slavery 
was to be forever excluded. The ordinance 
of ’87, however, was passed prior to the adop¬ 
tion of the Federal Constitution. The terri¬ 
tories of the other States received no organiza¬ 
tion until after the adoption of the Federal 
Constitution, and are consequently solely under 
its provisions. The arrangement by which the 














5 


Northwest Territory was set apart from the 
occupancy of slavery, was in consequence of 
the evident fact that by reason of climate and 
productions it could never be fit for such occu¬ 
pancy. Congress went on, with the cordial 
acquiescence of the South, in admitting free 
States north of the' Ohio. It at the same time, 
however, with an acquiescence equally cordial 
pn the part of the North, admitted the southern 
States of Louisiana out of the territory acquired 
from France in 1803 ; of Mississippi out of the 
territory formerly of South Carolina; and Ala¬ 
bama out of that which had belonged to Geor¬ 
gia. It was only when the question came up 
in Missouri, a Territory so far South as to leave 
ituncertain whether slavery might not be profit¬ 
ably introduced there, that there appeared any 
serious difficulty in arriving at an adjustment 
which should be mutually satisfactory. The 
struggle, which was wholly of a political char- 
* acter, resulted in the compromise of 1821, by 
which the line of 36° 30' was recognized as the 
northern lim it of slavery. The object of the strug¬ 
gle was an equal division of power between 
the free and slave sections. Abolitionism had 
not yet come to be an element of party contests. 
Such continued, though not without serious 
interruption,until this new element had grad¬ 
ually sprung up in the North, when the rela¬ 
tion of the two sections was disturbed by the 
introduction of the Wilmot proviso into the 
bill appropriating $3,000,000 to conclude a 
peace and purchase of territory with the Gov¬ 
ernment of Mexico. It however failed. Still 
there was much embittered feeling, which dis¬ 
played itself in certain States in passing laws 
for the nullification of the constitutional pro¬ 
vision for the rendition of fugitives from labor. 
This feeling, and this local manifestation of it, 
experienced no diminution, but became at 
length so menacing as to require the united 
efforts of the ablest statesmen of all parties, 
save that which stood and still stands on this 
question as its only basis to affect a settlement 
of a dispute which seemed fraught with ruin 
to our national existence. This settlement 
was embodied in the compromise acts of 1850. 
It was the spirit of that compromise that Con¬ 
gress should wholly decline to interfere in shap¬ 
ing the destiny of any State in its inchoate 
condition, by doing aught to determine the 


character of its domestic institutions. But 
this compromise, which was at first hailed as 
the harbinger of an uninterrupted reign of har¬ 
mony, produced no permanent effect. There 
was no cessation of slavery agitation in States 
which had no immediate interest in the ques¬ 
tion, and the South still felt no security that 
her rights would be respected. It was, there¬ 
fore, deemed an act of justice by the Demo¬ 
cratic party, in coming into the possession of 
the Government in 1852, to carry out fully the 
principles of the compromise legislation of 
1850, to remove every act of congressional 
legislation which stood in the way of the Con¬ 
stitution. Of this character was that Missouri 
act of 1821. That assumption of power has 
been the source of all the difficulties which have 
sprung out of the subject. That act assumed to 
fix the character, in respect to the institution of 
slavery, of extensive territories which would 
soon be applying for admission as independent 
States into the confederacy. The Constitution 
gave no warrant for that act, and it was, there¬ 
fore, but proper to withdraw the illegal propo¬ 
sition, and to leave the question—still under all 
the provisions of the Federal compact—to the 
people of the Territories. The Democratic 
party resolved that the time had arrived when 
the Constitution should be vindicated and its 
law reasserted. This was accomplished in the 
passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. That 
measure constituted a new era in the history of 
the party. It transferred the question from 
the halls of Congress to the people of the Ter¬ 
ritories, to be disposed of in their own way. 
It completely surrendered the power of Con¬ 
gress over the question, even to a claim to a 
review of the proceedings and actions of the 
Territories. This was the very gist of the doc¬ 
trine of non-intervention. 

It will abundantly appear, upon a elose in¬ 
quiry into the history of the Government, that 
by the true theory of its nature it is a confed¬ 
eracy of equal and sovereign States; that it is 
merely the trustee of certain powers conferred 
by the States ; and the agent of the States for 
certain purposes specified in the instrument 
of Union. The States, having full control of 
slave property before the Union, and not hav¬ 
ing in the act of Union surrendered any por¬ 
tion of that control, of course still retain it as 









6 


regards the States; and in reference to the 
Territories, the power of Congress, to whatever 
extent it may have existed, was surrendered 
by the act of 1854. This, it must be conceded, 
is the only doctrine which is consistent with 
the admitted equality of the States. In the 
convention at Charleston I had no hesitation 
in declaring that a territorial government is 
but provisional and temporary, and that dur¬ 
ing its existence no class of citizens and no 
kind of property can be lawfully excluded 
from the territorial limits; that the right of 
sovereignty commences when the territory has 
a population adequate to the formation of a 
constitution. 

In the convention at Baltimore which nom¬ 
inated Judge Douglas, the following resolution, 
offered by Governor Wickliffe, of Louisiana, 
was adopted with great unanimity : 

Resolved, That it is in accordance with the Cincinnati 
platform, that during the existence of territorial govern¬ 
ments the measure of restriction, whatever it may be, im¬ 
posed by the Federal Constitution on the power of the 
territorial legislature over the subject of the domestic rela¬ 
tions, as the same has been or shall hereafter be finally 
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, 
should be respected by all good citizens and enforced with 
promptness and fidelity by every branch of the General Gov¬ 
ernment. 

In my judgment it contains substantially all 
that has been contended for, and under the 
circumstances should have induced the united 
support of the party. 

While the theory thus maintained is right 
in itself and the only one to which the south¬ 
ern States, as equal independent sovereignties, 
should be asked or can be expected to assent, 
it cannot have the slightest effect in determin¬ 
ing, as to free or slave labor, the character of 
the institutions of any territory. This it can 
no more do than it can cause the orange to 
grow or the magnolia to bloom in climates 
which >are uncongenial to these productions. 
It will still be found, as heretofore, that phys¬ 
ical adaptations are those alone which will 
exercise any determining influence in this 
particular. It may be asked, then, why is the 
South so tenacious of this constitutional right? 
The question can be readily answered that the 
overshadowing power of the North, with its 
fearful and growing antagonism to its social 
; system, disturb the quiet of their firesides, 
and render insecure the title to their property. 

i 


In the progress of the changes which the past 
and future will bring, the South will prove 
the weaker body in both branches of the 
national representation, and can look for pro¬ 
tection only in the fulfillment and preservation 
of the guarantees of the Constitution, and to 
the sense of justice and generosity of the 
North. Hence the doctrine of the Baltimore 
resolution is the only one which promises ^ 
peaceful settlement of the question. It leaves 
no room for any further misunderstanding or 
misrepresentation. Once let this go forth as 
the settled interpretation of the party, and 
slavery agitation will henceforth be deprived 
of its nourishment. The mischievous element 
will be carried off from the body politic as 
effectually and as harmlessly as, by the light¬ 
ning conductor, the electricity is drawn from 
the angry cloud. Let this be established as 
the doctrine, and nothing more to disturb the 
national harmony, what is there to impede our 
progress in that matchless career of which 
our past history furnishes so interesting a 
record? The confederacy, thus exhibiting a 
noble example of justice towards all its mem¬ 
bers, and of a well disciplined liberty, will 
manifest more thoroughly to the world the 
success of our republican institutions and 
their compatibility with a wise self-govern¬ 
ment. 

Let us be impressed with the fact, that the 
importance of the question rises high above 
all personal considerations. The hasty opin¬ 
ions and inconsistencies of individuals have 
nothing to do with the subject. The party 
should, with a firm spirit, a united step, and a 
temper equal to the emergency, take a bold 
and comprehensive view of the question. It 
should stand up for the right, and struggle for 
its principles and its organization. 

In determining the moral rectitude of the 
institution of slavery, we should regard the 
status, in every respect, of the people who are 
the subjects of its influence. In this aspect 
we have important lessons to learn from his¬ 
tory. When we consult this unchanging au¬ 
thority, we learn that in every nation which 
has emerged from the obscurity of barbarism 
into the refinement of civilization, slavery 
has at some period of its existence held a 
recognized position. The Hebrews, whom 


i 










7 


\ 


God selected as his peculiar people, had sla¬ 
very among them from the time of the Patri¬ 
archs. Joseph himself was sold into Egypt 
by his brethren, and a constant traffic in this 
species of property was kept up by his people 
with the nations around Judea. Negro slavery 
was common among them, and, according to 
Josephus, negroes were imported by Solomon 
directly from Ethiopia. In Egypt and India, 
the ancient cradles of science and civilization, 
slavery was equally prevalent. It was not 
less common and rigorous throughout the other 
nations of antiquity. Assyria, Persia, Phoeni¬ 
cia, and Babylon, all beheld at every stage of 
their history a numerous portion of their pop¬ 
ulation in bondage. It was so also with those 
other nations, the most distinguished by their 
devotion to liberty 'and by their intellectual 
and moral supremacy, by their noble literature 
and imperishable works of art—the Greeks and 
the Romans. At the dawn of modern civiliza¬ 
tion, at the revival of learning in Italy, we 
find it established in every country of Europe. 
With its introduction by its Gothic authors, of 
the feudal system, the relation was recognized 
in its most abject form. The student or the 
common law will remember how large a por¬ 
tion of Coke and Littleton, and the Saxon 
black letter, is occupied with the discussion of 
villainage, its nature, several distinctions, and 
incidents. It continued practically till the 
reign of Elizabeth, and legally until it was 
abolished by the 12th Charles II. By degrees 
slavery passed away also from the nations of 
the continent, and since the French revolution 
the nations of Europe, with but few exceptions 
—Russia, Hungary, and Turkey—no longer 
retain it. For its abolition in European 
countries, Christianity doubtless prepared the 
way. 

Upon this continent, as is well known, no 
form of slavery ever appeared among the de¬ 
scendants of Europeans but that which fol¬ 
lowed on the introduction of the African race 
contemporaneously with the origin of the Eng¬ 
lish colonies, and that which for a time sub¬ 
sisted among the natives of the West Indies 
when first taken possession of by the Spaniards. 
From the first ship-load introduced by the 
Dutch and by the English, the work of import¬ 
ing African slaves still went on until slavery 


was an established institution in every one of 
the colonies. 

Now from this brief glance at the history of 
slavery we learn that it is of unknown antiquity. 
Civilization may be said to have commenced 
its march on the banks of the Nile, separated 
only by the Libyan desert from the home of 
the negro; but its beams were never able to 
penetrate the cloud of barbarism which hung 
over that vast continent, stretching from the 
borders of Egypt to the mouth of the Niger, 
and from the sands of Sahara to the Cape of 
Good Hope. Africa, save the small strip 
along the Mediterranean, which was occupied 
by the Arabs and Carthagenians, was peopled 
everywhere with the ebon-hued descendants 
of Ham. But though there was unity of race, 
there was no unity of nations; and history has 
always presented them as they are presented 
at this day, a multitude of savage tribes in the 
lowest condition of humanity; a people with¬ 
out arts of any kind, and without civiliza¬ 
tion. Experiments made in very recent times, 
and almost upon our own shores, also estab¬ 
lish the innate weakness and incapacity of 
the African race for self-government. St. 
Domingo, Barbadoes, St. Vincents, British 
Guiana, Trinidad, Antigua, Bermuda, and 
Jamaica, have a common voice to utter of 
the sanguinary cruelty, the uncontrollable pas¬ 
sions, the indolence and rapid retrogression 
of the negro when left to his own control. It 
is the concurrent testimony of men of intelli¬ 
gence and benevolence that the black popu¬ 
lation of the northern United States are the 
most needy, helpless, degraded, and wretched 
of the free States. It is ascertained by the 
results of the census of 1850 that they do not 
increase in numbers there, but that they de¬ 
creased in a rapid ratio. The result is akin to 
that which occurs under the grinding system 
of servitude which prevails in the West Indies. 
There some 700,000 slaves were imported into 
Jamaica before the trade was checked ; yet in 
1834, when the schemes of the British colonists 
were consummated, there were only 311,000 
to emancipate. And, again, there is the appall¬ 
ing fact, that of 1,700,000 imported into the 
West Indies, but 600,000 remain. Now, if we 
turn to the condition of the slave in the south¬ 
ern States, we are met with a state of things 







8 


in many respects the reverse of all this. Want 
and misery here are comparatively unknown 
among the black population. A far superior 
moral condition is everywhere apparent. The 
astonishing fact is presented that while the 
whole number of slaves imported is estimated 
at 333,000, this number has expanded under 
the yoke of southern bondage to the incredible 
number of 4,000,000. Surely that slavery which 
involves such comparative happiness to so large 
a portion of the human family is not so bad a 
thing as that condition of society which is in¬ 
capable of sustaining itself, as we have seen 
was the case in the West Indies and along the 
coast of Africa. Again, if we seek to try the ques¬ 
tion of slavery by the law of nature and nations, 
we shall find that there is a concurrence of 
authority among ethical writers and civilians to 
the conclusion that it is not inconsistent with 
the theoretical equality which has been sup¬ 
posed to exist between mankind in a state of 
nature. Justinian admitted that slavery is “ in 
accordance with the law of nations, though he 
alleged it to be contrary to natural right.” The 
ablest commentators on the Institutes have held 
that slavery is not repugnant to natural right, 
but only to that natural or primeval condition 
in which every man is born free. This opinion 
is also supported by the ancient philosophers 
1 Aristotle, Plato, and Plutarch, and the modern 
1 Montesquieu and Puffendorf. 

The increase of the black race in our south- 
: ern States, as we have already seen, is immense, 

< but it is not necessarily alarming, for the sur- 
{ plus will gradually find its way where there is 
1 the greatest deficiency of white labor^ and where 
1 labor of that simple species can be most profit- 
t ably employed, and this is in the tropical coun- 
r tries. Slavery must recede gradually from the 
£ limits of the border southern States as white 
T labor becomes abundant enough to supplant it, 
J and as population presses upon subsistence. 

1 It was John Randolph who declared in one 
€ of his remarkable speeches in Congress that 
P the time would arrive when the pressure 
^ would be so great even in Virginia “ that the 
^ slave would run away from the master or the 
0 master from the slave.” Whether the negro 
shall pass off through the Isthmus of Darien 
8 into the tropical countries of South America, 
a or be colonized in the land of his fathers, one 


of these events, or both, will most likely fur¬ 
nish the solution of the difficulty. 

The institution of slavery can indeed be held 
up to the imagination in frightful forms. The 
separation of families, the sale of children 
taken from the arms of mothers and carried 
to distant places, are well and justly calculated 
to excite a deep prejudice and produce fearful 
consequences. It is the great evil and abuse 
of the system. The crafty know this, and will 
avail themselves of all the advantages of thii 
condition of things, without stopping to con¬ 
sider the guarantees of the Constitution or the 
welfare of the slave. It is true, at the same 
time, that though the evils alluded to exist to 
some extent under the institution of slavery, 
yet they are greatly overdrawn, and so long as 
four millions of people of inferior organization 
shall be among us, these evils wotild be ten¬ 
fold greater under the grinding influence of 
necessity, if the black population were com- 
i pelled to rely on themselves for support. This 
is proven by the numerous instances, even 
among the whites, of separation in families, 
under the most distressing circumstances, in 
evefy populous community where want is prev¬ 
alent and necessity urgent. 

We need not fear to trust an Omnipotent 
God to provide means by which the relation of 
servitude will be terminated at the very mo¬ 
ment when it shall be to the advantage of the 
negro. That as the children of Israel, for 
the wise purposes of Providence, were per¬ 
mitted to endure centuries of Egyptian bond- 
age, yet in the fullness of time were separated 
to themselves as a favored people, so will 
be His dealings with the negro, when the 
latter shall have received a moral and' in¬ 
tellectual development which shall fit him 
for the change. Then at length some leader 
shall be raised up for him who, like Moses, 
though without any series of splendid miracles 
to attest his mission, or the necessity of any 
visitation of plagues upon our countrymen 
because they will “not let the people go,” 
shall conduct the negro from the shores of 
America to his old home in the land of Ham. 
It will then be found that interest and human¬ 
ity will alike cooperate with the whites to 
send him on his way rejoicing. Then, per¬ 
chance, a succession of legislators, moralists, 















and reformers, shall arise to do for the African 
what has been done for every race which has 
attained to civilization and refinement. Then, 
indeed, the coasts of Guinea and Congo may 
forget their cannibal rites, their tribal wars, 
and their barracoons ; and the palm groves of 
the Niger will shelter a people redeemed from 
savage life and enjoying the blessings of a 
benign religion. 

The history of the slavery question is, how¬ 
ever, but one more instance to teach us that 
the fulfillment of a great constitutional obliga¬ 
tion or a great measure of public policy is 
always attended with difficulty, and is ever 
made the occasion of bitter attack upon those 
by whose agency it is effected. The adminis¬ 
tration of Mr. Jefferson was bitterly assailed— 
the purity of his motives and the soundness of 
his statesmanship were held up to public scorn 
for having effected the purchase of Louisiana, 
which added an empire to the confederacy, se¬ 
cured an outlet to the Mississippi, and greatly 
increased the military defenses of the coun¬ 
try. The administration of Mr. Madison was 
assaulted with a fierceness unparalleled in 
political warfare for having dared to maintain 
the honor of his country in 1812, in resisting 
British aggressions and in defense of the 
freedom of the seas. A virulent animosity 
was waged against General Jackson for meas¬ 
ures of policy which have proved most salutary 
to the country, and especially for that which 
has resulted in providing us with an abundant 
and sound currency, such as the constitution 
contemplated. The administration of Van 
Buren was in like manner denounced for the 
most important measure of the independent 
treasury, which separated the fiscal concerns of 
the Government from banking institutions, 
and has created new safeguards for the revenue 
in its receipts as well as its disbursements. 
The administration of Mr. Polk was harassed 
with the Wilmot Proviso, and that of General : 
Pierce as well as of Mr. Buchanan, have been 
thwarted by “bleeding Kansas.” Such seems 
to be the inevitable result of political organi¬ 
zations. They are but the stofms and clouds 
which temporarily obscure the sun in his march. 
But, though dimmed for a moment, the rays 
of his morning and evening luster remain in fact 
untarnished and beaming from the clear sky. 


9 


All the great results alluded to have been 
achieved by a faithful adherence to Democratic 
principles and regular organizations. A faith¬ 
ful and united support of the electoral ticket 
nominated by the Reading convention, and 
recently indorsed with great unanimity by the 
State central committee at Cresson, will enable 
us again to carry Pennsylvania and to elect 
our Governor. 

As already observed, since 1789 the Demo¬ 
cratic party has been fiercely opposed to the 
, farthest limit short of crushing it out. First 
the war came from the Federalists, and after¬ 
ward great efforts were made to defeat it in the 
| contests involving the tariff, internal improve¬ 
ments, the acquisition of territory, the cur¬ 
rency, the distribution of the proceeds of the 
public lands, and the veto power. In each of 
these contests the party strength was too great 
to admitof any but the most temporary triumph 
being achieved over it. Discovering this fact 
the Opposition have abandoned all their old 
: issues, and are determined to get possession of 
the Government by inflaming the passions and 
i prejudices of the people, and staking an issue 
and a battle on- that geographical line which 
was pointed out with apprehension by Mr. 

| Jefferson. 

j Let us be deeply impressed with the truth 
! that it is to the destiny of the Democratic party 
that is peculiarly confided the great trust of 
ij preserving aud making perfect this experiment 
of free government. For, notwithstanding 
our unexampled progress in the arts and 
sciences and the general advancement of civil¬ 
ization, it is an experiment still, and by no 
! means, save in a very limited sense, is it set¬ 
tled experience. For six thousand years man- 
j kind have been struggling to establish a Gov¬ 
ernment securing equality in the enjoyment of 
civil and religious liberty. While some pre¬ 
ceding efforts had approximated the attain¬ 
ment of the object, they had all failed to ac¬ 
complish it. The history of the ancients, as 
well as of modern Europe, is filled with the 
melancholy recitals of bloody struggles, and 
;| of millions prematurely hurried to the grave. 
It is well known that some of the ablest men 
that lived during the Revolution, and who had 
led her armies to battle, had expressed their 
fears that the dangers of the government about 















to be established would be found in a departure 
from its just and unexceptionable principles. 
The conditions adapted to try its strength and 
varied practicability have never yet existed. 
In some of our more populous cities—in Bal¬ 
timore, New Orleans, and San Francisco—and 
even other districts, where population presses 
upon subsistence, the civil law has been made 
to yield to popular tumult. As yet, upon the 
whole, stability and protection have been found 
in the sparseness of our population, and the 
general adequacy of subsistence to the wants 
of the people. This is furnished by the public 
domain, which operates as a safety-valve to 
society, illustrating the beautiful passage of 
the old testament representing the separation 
between Abraham and Lot: “And Abraham 
said unto Lot: Let there be no strife, I pray, 
between me and thee, and between my herd- 
men and thy herdmen; for we be brethren. 
Is not the whole land before thee? Separate 
thyself, I pray thee, from me. If thou wilt 
take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or 
if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go 
to the left.” 

It requires but little reach of vision to look 
into the future, and see how this state of things 
will be changed. The workings of society in 
Europe, together with our own progress, are 
adding largely to our population, and will 
create the necessity of increased vigilance, and 
determined and patriotic adherence to the 
letter and spirit of the federal compact. In the 
better days, when sectionalism was unknown, 
and a feeling of true fraternity united the citi¬ 
zens of every portion of the country, who has 
not dwelt with admiration upon the perfections 
of that instrument, truly the “noblest birth of 
time,” in which this compact is embodied 1 
Who has not been struck with the singular 
justice with which every department of the 
Government is defined and made dependent! 
Who has not been penetrated with profoundest 
veneration for the beauty, the majesty, and 
Gothic grandeur of the whole! It is, however, 
idle to talk or think of preserving the Consti¬ 
tution without a faithful adherence to the letter 
and spirit of that compact which resulted from 
the necessary concessions in which it origi¬ 
nated. If the North is wise, she will meet with 
earnest "performance the just expectations of 


her brethren. She will act with a patriotism 
and deliberation worthy of the fathers when 
they burst the ties of allegiance to England, 
to take a single step which looks toward a dis¬ 
solution of the confederacy. With more than 
Caesarean concern may we ponder the woes 
which the passing of that Rubicon would entail 
upon our unhappy countrymen. Let us con¬ 
template, as the first fruits of that result, the 
loss of our foreign commerce; our manufac¬ 
tures in decay; our whole industry broken up; 
and our towns and cities marked by the hand 
of desolation. Let us be sure that the na¬ 
tional spirit would then languish and die out; 
and that the liberty, so fully enjoyed by every 
member of society, would become an alien in 
the land of its bir^h, and, like the harp hung 
upon the willows of the Euphrates by the cap¬ 
tive Hebrew maiden, would refuse longer to 
utter its spirit-stirring voice. A revulsion in 
money matters would be but an item in the 
general ruin. Great Britain, true to that selfish 
and wily policy which regards only the perma¬ 
nence of her own system, having accomplished 
her great object—the dissolution of the Union, 
thereby destroying the effect of our republican 
example—would then unite with the new mon- 
archs of the divisions of these States. Eng¬ 
lish institutions would soon remodel our habits, 
commercial, social, political, and religious; 
and the compulsory support of an ecclesias¬ 
tical establishment, as part of the State machi¬ 
nery, would come hand in hand with the crea¬ 
tion of privileged classes, to tax the energies 
and fetter the spirit of our people. 

In the contest of ’56 great principles were at 
stake. It was the contest of the Constitution 
in its integrity, as extending its protecting aegis 
alike over every section and over the citizen 
of whatever name, whether native or foreign, 
with a rampant sectionalism which dared to 
risk everything valuable for the establishment 
of its fanatical principles and the revival with 
renewed bitterness of that Federal jealousy of 
citizens of foreign birth which the people had 
so signally rebuked in the defeat of the elder 
Adams and the triumph of Jefferson. The cause 
of the Constitution, of the Republic, and the 
country, the cause of liberty under law, of the 
present and of the coming generations, tri¬ 
umphed at last. It is for us now in this con- 














11 


test to aid by a thorough union and determined 
effort in securing the perpetuity of that triumph. 

I hold Judge Douglas, by the delault of the 
South, to have obtained the nomination of 
the Democratic party. As such nominee I 
support him. Throughout the whole struggle 
which resulted in his nomination, I acted with 
the South, I recognized their constitutional 
demands, but a portion of the South made 
common cause with a man who alone caused 
the trouble at Charleston, and whose purpose 
is charged to have been the dismemberment 
of the Union. 

Judge Douglas personally, and from the 
general character of the services rendered to 


his party and to the country, is eminently 
worthy of the high position for which he has 
been nominated. In the career of few public 
men of this generation has been more thor¬ 
oughly illustrated the noble quality of our free 
institutions. Sprung from the common ranks 
of life, he early exhibited a force of genius, 
an energy of character, and a catholicity of 
heart which won for him the confidence of his 
fellow citizens. A living commentary upon 
the excellence of our institutions, and the 
architect of his own splendid career, let us be 
true to him and to ourselves by uniting cor¬ 
dially in his support inside of the party organ¬ 
ization. 


























* 





. 


I 

1 

I 

I 



























HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 

M 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


THE STATE OF THE UNION. 


DELIVERED 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTIYES, 

FEBRUARY 24, 1864. 


WASHINGTON: 

L. TOWERS & CO., PRINTERS. 

1864 





































































































































* 






■ 











































































SPEECH 


OF 

HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


ON 

THE STATE OF THE UNION, 


DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEB. 24, 1864. 


Mr. DAWSON said: 

Mr. Speaker : It is now about eight years since I left these 
Halls. The country was then in the enjoyment of its uninter¬ 
rupted career of prosperity. It seemed as though at length the 
problem of government had been solved, and that human wis¬ 
dom had produced a system which, resting on a basis of just and 
equal laws for individuals, consulted with the happiest success 
for the rights and interests of the political communities which 
composed the federation. From small beginnings three-quarters 
of a century before we had grown to greatness. From thirteen 
colonies, feeble and poor at best, we had become a populous and 
wealthy nation, a rich and powerful empire. The great nations 
of the world had come to look upon us with respect, with admi¬ 
ration, and envy. Sectional causes of difference had indeed ruf¬ 
fled rather too rudely the calm surface of our prosperity; but 
prone to trust in that signal care of Providence which had hith¬ 
erto befriended us, we dismissed lightly the apprehensions of evil 
which they were fitted to occasion us. We took counsel too 
readily of our wishes, and always rested in the conclusion that 
the Republic must be perpetual. 

Such was the state of things at the close of my representative 
term in 1855. I return here in the midst of a revolution. Coun¬ 
trymen of the same lineage are arrayed in bloody conflict. 
Strange and unheard-of doctrines of government are promulga¬ 
ted by those in possession of authority; and powers and meas¬ 
ures unknown to the Constitution are resorted to with desperate 
eagerness at the call of the novel exigencies which have arisen. 

The division of the country by violence has been all along 
foreseen by the wise among us as the consequence of causes 
which might have been avoided. As it is, the future inquirer 
into the history of the events transpiring around us will be struck 
with amazement at the folly and madness which could thus per- 




4 


mit to perish, if perish it shall, a Government so admirable after 
an existence but little extended beyond that prescribed by the 
Psalmist as the maximum of individual life. The fact oi our 
extraordinary greatness, as compared with the brief duration of 
our institutions, furnishes the most conclusive attestation of their 
unparalleled excellence. Yet this has not sufficed, when once 
the demon of sectionalism has been evoked, to save this noble 
fabric of civilization from the ruin, it may be, which has been 
the common fate of nations. The wisdom and foresight of the 
fathers have been shamed; and together with the memory of 
their noble struggles, sacrifices, and sufferings in the cause of in¬ 
dependence and freedom, their counsels and warnings have been 
cast to oblivion. In vain the common ties of language, manners, 
literature, and religion, of blood and country and glory, have 
raised their supplicating voice for the continuance of the Union. 

Nearly three years of civil war have now discharged their re¬ 
lentless fury upon our unhappy country; and we are yet appar¬ 
ently as remote from any satisfactory adjustment of our differ¬ 
ences as when we first flew to arms. These unlucky years have 
seen many of the peaceful pursuits of the country broken up, its 
vast resources wasted in unfruitful conflict, and the members of 
almost every household arrayed in the sable habiliments of grief. 
And still the contest rages. This ill-judged rebellion still inter¬ 
poses its huge and fearful proportions between the present and 
the return of prosperity to our country. The all-important and 
practical question which we have to determine is, what is the 
policy which the exigency demands ? In order to a wise consul¬ 
tation upon this subject it is necessary to look to the past as well 
as the future. What is this Government, whose existence is now 
in such fearful peril, and for the maintenance of which the coun¬ 
try is yielding so lavishly of its blood and its treasure ? Iam 
convinced that it is from loose and incorrect ideas of the nature 
of our Government, from allowing the heats of party strife to 
withdraw our attention from its true character, and to confuse 
our sense of the duties which we owe it, that have flowed the 
evils from which the country is suffering. Upon a subject of 
such transcendent importance as this silence in a representative 
of the people, hesitation or concealment, would, in my judgment, 
be alike criminal. I shall speak, therefore, under those deep 
convictions of duty which the times inspire, and with that unre¬ 
served freedom and boldness which are the birthright of an 
American citizen. 

The true character of our Government, then, will be best per¬ 
ceived from a glance at its formation. It is well known that the 
idea of a union, more or less extensive, of the British colonies, 
was from a very early period not an unfamiliar one with our 
fathers. Such a union was formed by certain of the New Eng¬ 
land colonies as early as 1643, the object being the common de¬ 
fense against the Indians and the Dutch of New Amsterdam. 


5 


The congress which met at Albany in 1722, and included other 
colonies than the New England, contemplated a similar union, 
as did the still more important one which was called at the same 
place in 1754, to consult for the protection of the colonies against 
hostilities by the French and Indians. The projected union, 
however, failed through jealousies on the part of the home Gov¬ 
ernment, as well as among the colonies themselves. The idea of 
colonial union was at length fully matured in 1774, in the first 
Continental Congress which met at Philadelphia, consisting of 
the representatives of twelve colonies. Its object, it will be re¬ 
membered, was to consult for the “ common welfare ” against the 
oppressive measures and unwarrantable pretensions of the mother 
country. While resistance was determined upon against the 
claim to tax the colonies without their consent, the idea of inde¬ 
pendence had not yet found acceptance in the colonial councils. 
In the spirit of attachment to Great Britain, the colonies would 
freely have united in conceding to her the benefit of her naviga¬ 
tion acts could she have consented to renounce the fatal claim 
to the right of taxation. The measures adopted by that Congress 
had for their object to compel her to abandon that right, and 
British commerce was to be renounced till she did so. Two years 
later, by the mad persistence of the home Government in her 
unjust measures, the colonies w T ere forced into independence. 

Simultaneously with that act, the Continental Congress pro¬ 
ceeded to prepare Articles of Confederation, which should express 
the nature of the compact between the States, and define the 
powers conferred upon the Congress, as well as those reserved to 
the States. Notwithstanding the greatness of the common exi¬ 
gency, diversity of interests, local prejudices and jealousies pre¬ 
vented an immediate union by Congress on such articles, and not 
till in March, 1781, was the ratification of these articles completed 
by the thirteen States. 

What is especially to be noted in the whole of these proceed¬ 
ings is the jealous care exercised by the several colonies in as¬ 
serting their individual sovereignty and in guarding it against 
encroachment. Thus, in the action of the various independent 
political Communities in appointing delegates to the Continental 
Congress, the “sole and exclusive regulation of their own inter¬ 
nal government, police, and concerns” was explicitly reserved. 
The States consented to surrender only a very partial control 
over the subject of trade. The Congress was invested by the ar¬ 
ticles with no control whatever over individuals. 

Under these articles the United States were enabled to close 
the war of the Revolution, and secure our independence. But, 
as requisitions for delinquencies in raising revenue could only be 
made against the States in their corporate capacities, there was 
no remedy when these were withheld by the States except a re¬ 
sort to civil war. This was the defect of the old Confederation, 
as it had been of all similar establishments of ancient and modern 



6 


times—of the Grecian republics; the Germanic, Hanseatic, the 
Dutch, and the Helvetian. The immediate and pressing griev¬ 
ance which paralyzed the energies of the Confederate Govern¬ 
ment was the numerous, diverse, and conflicting interests and 
regulations in regard to trade. 

In order to secure the fruits of the Devolution it was necessary 
that the commerce of the country should be freed from the dis¬ 
advantages under which it was placed by the discriminations im¬ 
posed upon it by foreign Governments, by the navigation laws 
which their own interests and cupidity had induced those Gov¬ 
ernments to adopt. -It was not less necessary that the. public 
faith should be preserved; that the debts contracted during the 
Revolution should be liquidated, and the treaty stipulations into 
which we had entered with European Governments strictly com¬ 
plied with. It was also necessary “ to provide for the common 
defense.” These were the great and pressing inducements to the 
formation of a new compact of Union. In it a remedy was 
sought also for the weakness and inefficiency of the Confederation 
by conferring upon the central Government still larger and better 
defined powers; and, by distributing them through well-balanced 
legislative, judicial, and-executive departments, to bring down 
those powers to operate upon individuals. In these three partic¬ 
ulars: in the greater extent and more precise definition of the 
powers conveyed; in surrendering the control of the several 
States over the subject of commercial regulations; and in the 
distribution of the powers through a well-organized system, so as 
to act upon individuals within the sphere of those powers, con¬ 
sists the great and material difference of the Constitution of 1789 
from the Articles of Confederation. It was these changes which 
converted the Government of the United States from a specious 
but lifeless and inefficient organization to one of vital and ener¬ 
getic power for great and beneficial ends. It was and is still not 
less a Federal Government . Neither in the circumstances which 
attended its formation and adoption, nor in the instrument itself, 
nor yet in the expositions of its founders, is there apparent any 
intention to substitute a consolidated Government in lieu of that 
of the compact of the States. 

The Convention of 1787, which framed the Constitution, was 
composed of delegates from the several States , and not from the 
people at large. Propositions in the Convention were voted upon 
by the delegates, not as individuals, but by States. It wa§ not a 
majority of the delegates, but a majority of the States , by which 
each proposition was rejected or became a part of the Constitu¬ 
tion. As the people did not act as a whole in appointing a Con¬ 
vention to form a Constitution, neither did they in ratifying it; 
but the ratification was by conventions appointed by the people 
of the several States. This ratification was also made at different 
times; for while the Constitution was adopted September 17, 
1787, the consent of Virginia, which as that of the ninth State 



7 


was necessary to put it in operation, was not obtained until June 
26, 1788. And though, as accepted by nine States, the new 
Government went into operation the 4th of March, 1789. North 
Carolina did not accede until the 21st of November following, 
more than two years after its adoption by the Convention; nor 
Rhode Island till May 29, 1790, nearly three years after that 
event; and those States, during the period of their hesitation, 
were treated by the legislation of the United States as foreign 
countries. By the seventh article of the Constitution it is de¬ 
clared that the ratification of the conventions of nine States 
“ shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution be¬ 
tween the States so ratifying the same.” The tenth article also 
declares that the “powers not delegated to the United States by 
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved 
to the States respectively or to the people.” 

It thus appears, from a consideration of the circumstances un¬ 
der which the Constitution was produced, and from the provis¬ 
ions of the instrument itself, that our Government is a compact 
between sovereign and coequal political communities, the States 
composing it. Governeur Morris, who was the individual in the 
Convention upon whom devolved the task of revising the lan¬ 
guage of the instrument before its adoption by that body, also 
declared “ that the Constitution was a compact, not between soli¬ 
tary individuals, but between political societies.” 

I have thus recurred to what are seen to be leading facts and 
principles in the formation of our Government. This retrospect 
must convince us that it is historically true that our Government 
was formed by the States as parties, and not by individnal citi¬ 
zens as members of one community. I hold it at the same time 
true that this Government, which is one of limited and specially 
defined powers, is of the same obligatory authority within the 
sphere of the granted powers as the State governments themselves 
within the sphere of the reserved powers. I see not how this can 
be otherwise, since both were created by the same authority— 
that of the individual citizens of the several States acting through 
their respective State organizations. The Government of the 
United States-and those of the several States are therefore equally 
sovereign in their respective spheres. I therefore find no diffi¬ 
culty in a divided allegiance, and I hold that allegiance to bind 
the citizen in equal degree to the government of the State and 
to that of the nation, both proceeding from the same source—the 
people of the several States. In case of irreconcilable difference 
between the Federal and State Governments, there is no neces¬ 
sity that the parties to the compact should, each for itself, decide 
the dispute; for in the very instrument of compact they appoint¬ 
ed an arbiter, the judiciary, by whose decisions they agreed to 
abide. 

If these were still not sufficient,, and the Constitution, even 
under the interpretation of its own functionaries, should be found 



in its working to* bear hard upon individual States, there was 
still another peaceful remedy provided by the charter. This 
was the amendment of the charter itself. It is a consequence of 
these view&that there is no cause which would justify withhold¬ 
ing allegianee from the Government of the United States and re¬ 
sisting its authority, which might not be of sufficient magnitude 
and oppressive character to authorize resistance to the State gov¬ 
ernment. In other words, there is no cause resulting from the 
nature of the compact, or the relation of the parties, to do this 
as of constitutional right, but only that cause which exists in all 
governments, the ultima ratio populi, the right of the people to 
alter and abolish, their Government when in their judgment it 
has proved destructive of its end. Nullification and secession are 
therefore, in my view, alike without warrant in the Constitution. 

The South has been consistent since 1798 in adhering to the 
doctrine of State rights. When the Constitution first went into 
operation the doctrine that the Constitution was a compact be¬ 
tween political societies or sovereignties received the consent 
of many of the .greatest and best minds of the North. It was 
asserted as distinctly and emphatically by Morris, by Sherman, 
Johnson, and Oliver Ellsworth, afterwards Chief Justice of 
the United States, of the North, as it was by Madison and Jef¬ 
ferson. Nor did the doctrine rest merely on constitutional 
history and fact or abstract theory with the North. .Repeatedly 
before this was done by any part of the South was the theory of 
State rights resorted to by New England as a justification for 
breaking up the Union. The first of these was during the admin¬ 
istration of Washington, when the New England Representatives 
declared that those States would secede unless the debts of the 
States should be assumed by the General Government. The se¬ 
cond was upon the occasion of the embargo act, passed Decem¬ 
ber 23, 1807, as a retaliatory measure to meet the Berlin and 
Milan decrees of Napoleon and the British orders in council. The 
embargo being, in view of the eastern States-, designed as a blow 
at their commerce for the benefit of other sections of the coun¬ 
try, open resistance was threatened in case the embargo was en¬ 
forced. The violence of this outcry secured the .repeal of the 
embargo in 1309. A similar disposition was manifested in New 
England again on the purchase of Louisiana. The proposition 
of a measure which has added so incalculably to the greatness 
and prosperity of the country was met with sihiilar threats of 
dissolving the Union. 

But a fourth time and with still louder and more unsatisfied 
clamor did New England threaten rebellion to the Government, 
and throw herself upon the doctrine of State sovereignty as au¬ 
thorizing a dissolution of the Union. This was during the 
Administration of Mr. Madison, and from dissatisfaction with its 
measures, the last of which was the declaration of war in 1812. 
Slavery then, as now, was held up to odium as “the rotten part 


9 


of the Constitution” which must be amputated. It mattered not 
then, as it has not in more recent times, that it was a part of the 
Constitution. This opposition took an organized form of expres¬ 
sion in the Hartford Convention of December 15, 1814, in which 
Massachusetts was represented by twelve delegates, Connecticut 
by seven, Rhode Island four, New Hampshire by three, and Ver¬ 
mont by one. A dissolution of the Union and formation of a 
new confederacy was the remedy to which that convention looked 
unless their terms should be complied with; and ulterior meas¬ 
ures for an actual separation of the States were to be taken by 
a subsequent convention to be held in June following. Like 
South Carolina before the final act of separation, the States of 
Massachusetts and Connecticut sent commissioners to Washington ♦ 
to present their demands to the Administration. Among these 
was the high name of Harrison Gray Otis. The simultaneous 
arrival in Washington of the news of the peace of Ghent no 
doubt alone saved Hew England the honor of anticipating the 
southern States in separating from the Union. 

It thus appears that in the heresy of secession and nullification 
as constitutional remedies for real or imaginary grievances, the 
North and the South were alike participants. While I have 
expressed my own disapprobation of the consequences deduced 
from those doctrines, it is impossible to deny that their full jus¬ 
tification is found in the teachings and practice of the North. 

In my judgment both were wrong. Allegiance was in both 
instances equally due to the General Government within the 
sphere of the granted powers, as to the States within the re¬ 
served ; and I do not think that in either case the grievance was 
sufficient to justify revolution. 

As to the right of the General Government to coerce a State, 
in such circumstances, the preponderance of authority may be 
said to have been adverse. It is well known that a proposition 
to confer the power of coercing a State was made in the Consti¬ 
tutional Convention by Edmund Randolph, and was decisively 
rejected. It is also clear that it is not among the specially 
granted powers and if it be found there at all, it is among those 
which are necessary to carry the granted powers into effect. It 
was the opinion of Johnson and Ellsworth, the delegates in the 
Constitutional Convention from Connecticut, and of Mr. Madi¬ 
son, from Virginia, that the Constitution does not attempt to 
coerce sovereign States in their political capacities; that the 
power which is to enforce the laws is to be a legal power, vested 
in the magistrates. The force to be employed is the energy of 
law , and this is to be exerted only upon individuals. Hamilton, 
if he did not expressly deny the existence of the power to co¬ 
erce, certainly did not at least contemplate its exercise. He 
approved of the proceedings by Massachusetts, calling in aid the 
power of the General Government to suppress the Shay insur¬ 
rection, but he remarked in that connection: 




10 


“ But how can this force be exerted on the States collectively ? It is impossible. 
It amounts to a declaration of war between the parties. Foreign Powers also will 
not be idle spectators. They will interfere ; the confusion will increase, and a dis¬ 
solution of the Union will ensue.” 

It is apparent from the history of the State rights doctrine that 
in framing a national Government there were many and great 
diversities to be reconciled between the independent States. 
Though speaking a common language, and possessing the com¬ 
mon law as a common inheritance, the colonies of the different 
sections were marked by radical and striking peculiarities. The 
Puritans of New England differed not more in character from 
the Cavaliers of Virginia, than the Hugenots of the Carolinas 
from the Quakers of Pennsylvania, and the Koman Catholics of 
Maryland from the Dutch of New York. The prejudices of 
opinion and antipathies which the settlers brought with them 
from Europe were still actively cherished in their new abode. 
There were also wide differences of interest. The interests of 
the Northern States were chiefly commercial, their wealth con¬ 
sisting in the ships engaged in the carrying trade and in the 
fisheries. The States of the South, whose property was more 
largely in slaves, were interested in planting. In forming a 
common Government these discordant elements had to be con¬ 
sulted and reconciled. To any one who has carefully studied 
the history of the Constitution it must be clear that if the full 
demands of the sections had been insisted on in the Convention 
that body would have terminated without results. But the occa¬ 
sion was one calling loudly for compromise, and the wise heads 
and patriotic hearts of*the men of the Devolution were there to 
meet it in the proper spirit. New England demanded protection 
for her navigation, while the South required protection for her • 
slave property. These demands were reconciled by the South 
surrendering to the common Government the right to tax the 
ships of foreign States and to impose duties upon imports — in 
other words, the control of the whole subject of trade — New 
England conceding in return to the South the right of importing 
slaves for twenty years, the right to have three-fifths of her 
slaves reckoned in the basis of representation, and the right to 
the surrender of her fugitive slaves. This, as'characterized by 
Gouverneur Morris, was the u bargain ” between the sections, 
and by it slavery became a part of our national Government. 
Had these concessions not been obtained, it is but the simple 
truth to say that the Southern States would never have become 
parties to the Government. 

Such, then, was the Government left us by our fathers; and 
whatever fault we may find with the conditions which it in¬ 
volves, good faith required that we should strictly adhere to 
them. 1 believe -the history of our Government will bear me 
out in the assertion, that whatever troubles we have at any time 
experienced have been in consequence of the exercise of the 



11 


doubtful powers , and of a departure from the spirit of the com¬ 
pact. I might instance that departure in the case of the estab¬ 
lishment of the national hank, and the assumption of the State 
debts. It was a further step in the same direction when by the 
tariffs of 1816 and 1824 and 1828 duties upon imports were 
levied not for the clearly constitutional ^purpose of an economical 
administration of the Government, but for the avowed object of 
protection to home manufactures. Happy, thrice happy for the 
people of these States would it have been had the sectional feel¬ 
ing of the country limited itself to such triumphs as it might 
hope to achieve through the exercise of the implied powers 
under the Constitution. 

But it manifested itself further in a dissatisfaction on the part 
of the North with the compromises of the Constitution in regard 
to slavery. There had indeed existed almost contemporaneously 
with the adoption of the charter a small party of abolitionists, 
consisting chiefly of the Quakers of New England and Pennsyl¬ 
vania. These parties, during Washington’s administration, had 
memorialized Congress for the abolition of the slave trade prior 
to the time fixed in the Constitution, and for the abolition of sla¬ 
very within the States. This cry, which originated with fanatics, 
was caught up by politicians for party ends, and was used with 
great bitterness by the northern journals to intensify the hostility 
which that section entertained toward the measures of Mr. Jef¬ 
ferson and Mr. Madison’s administrations. This spirit of hos¬ 
tility to slavery continued to increase, and broke out with fresh 
virulence on the application of Missouri for admission into the 
Union. It thus assumed on unprecedented importance from its 
connection with a contest for political power. 

Shortly after, the. public mails were used to distribute over the 
South incendiary matter calculated to stir up insurrection among 
the slaves. Congress was besieged for the abolition of slavery 
within the District of Columbia; and John Quincy Adams per¬ 
sistently and defiantly presented petitions praying for the disso¬ 
lution of the Union. States nullified by their legislation the acts 
of Congress passed in pursuance of the provision in the Constitu¬ 
tion for the rendition of “ fugitives from labor.” Pennsylvania 
thus repealed, in 1841, an act placed upon her statute-book in 
1780. And when a territorial government for Oregon was to be 
provided, the proposition to extend the Missouri line of 36° 30' 
to the Pacific ocean was rejected by Congress, and the Wilmot 
proviso, prohibiting slavery in Oregon, adopted. California was 
also admitted as a State without passing through a territorial 
condition, and with an anti-slavery constitution. The effect was 
to make a discrimination between the citizens of co-equal States, 
which the Constitution did not contemplate. Simultaneously 
there appeared in New England certain new social and political 
theories in relation to slavery. 

That these theories were of foreign origin little doubt can be 


12 


entertained. The unexpected success of our political institutions, 
tile growing greatness of our American Republic, of our com¬ 
merce, and all our industrial pursuits, had begun to affect Eng¬ 
land with fears for the permanence of her own superiority, and 
even for the duration of her political system. The success of so 
economical a government, and one so favorable to the rights of 
man, seemed to be a standing reproach to the more expensive, 
exclusive, and unequal establishments of European absolutism. 
In addition to these motives, England had aTso a further one : we 
were her rebellious offspring. To ^ee our Republic prove a fail¬ 
ure and our federative system divided, so that one section could 
be fought against the other, was the aim of both her pride and 
power. It was therefore that the vigilant eyes of some of her po¬ 
litical leaders soon discovered the opportunity afforded by our 
domestic differences for the introduction and fomentation of strife. 
Abolition emissaries quickly found their way to Boston. There 
their incendiary doctrines soon foynd a congenial soil. The seed 
“fell upon good ground and increased a hundred fold.” Agita¬ 
tion of the slavery question in every form and upon every occa¬ 
sion has since that time been perseveringly maintained in the 
northern States, and especially in Rew England, in conversation, 
in lectures, by the press, in the pulpit, in the halls of legislation, 
and upon the stump, all of which tended only to one disastrous 
result. 

Mr. Buchanan lias been blamed for lack of energy in meeting 
the sudden crisis of the rebellion. It has been asserted that had 
lie acted with proper promptness in garrisoning the fortifications 
in the six excited southern States the rebellion would have been 
avoided. But the truth is, there were no available troops within 
reach. General Scott, in his supplemental views to the War De¬ 
partment on the 30th October, 1860, stated that but four hundred 
troops were within reach for that purpose. It is evident that it 
was his great aim to avoid a collision, to avert civil war and save 
the Union, affirming the clear authority of the Government to 
enforce the Federal laws within a State, but finding none to beat 
back a seceding State into the Union. In the nullification trou¬ 
bles in 1832, General Jackson did not attempt to exert the coer¬ 
cive power until, on application to Congress, the force bill was 
passed. Did not Mr. Buchanan ask Congress for a similar bill, 
“ or to authorize the employment of military force,” and did hot 
Congress fail to grant it? Agreeing with General Jackson in his 
views as expressed in his farewell address, in the utter inefficiency 
of mere force to preserve the Union, he urged, in his annual 
message to Congress on the 3d December, 1860, and again in his 
special message of January 8, 1861, the adoption of amendments 
to the Consitution of the same character as those subsequently 
proposed by Mr. Crittenden. 


Fiat justitia, ruat coehimJ 


13 


. Congress omitted to propose amendments to tlie Constitu¬ 
tion. They omitted also to pass the Crittenden resolutions hav¬ 
ing the same effect. These resolutions, it was stated by several 
southern Senators, one of whom was Jefferson Davis, in the Sen¬ 
ate committee of thirteen, would have been accepted by the 
Sopth as a basis of final settlement.—(See Congressional Globe, 
second session Thirty-Sixth Congress, volume 44, part 2, pages 
1390, 1391.) Had Mr. Lincoln, after his arrival in Washington, 
but said the word “peace,” those resolutions would have been 
adopted and the war avoided. South Carolina would have stood 
alone. At this crisis it was apparent that the danger of dissolu¬ 
tion and civil war was both real and imminent. Mr. Lincoln 
was unequal to the occasion. The peace conference adjourned 
without important action. Congress adjourned leaving every¬ 
thing unsettled and the whole country shaken by the most violent 
agitation. The collision in the harbor of Charleston was the fatal 
consequence. 

The reader of English history need but remember how feeble 
was the eloquence of Chatham in arresting the progress of the 
war with the American colonies after it had been commenced. 
The same authority reminds us of the mighty efforts of Fox to 
avert the war with France, which ended only with the battle of 
Waterloo and the exile of Napoleon. Peace is the policy of all 
Governments, the indispensable policy of a republic, whose great 
basis is popular affection. With us I believe it could have been 
preserved without sacrifice. 

In the President’s proclamation which followed, he called for 
seventy-five thousand volunteers “to defend the capital, to recap¬ 
ture the forts, and enforce the laws.” The volunteers thus called 
for came forward with a promptness and alacrity which did credit 
to their love of country, and indicated their attachment to that 
constitutional Government left them by their fathers, and their 
resolution to repel at all hazards the sacrilegious attempt thus 
made upon its existence. The people were still further assured of 
the conservative purposes and character of the war now proposed, 
by the instructions issued by the State Department to our repre¬ 
sentatives at European courts, as w r ell as in the policy announced 
in the President’s inaugural address of the 4th March, 1861, and 
in his message to the special Congress which met in Jnly follow¬ 
ing. Mr. Seward declared in these instructions that— 

“Moral and physical causes have determined inflexibly the character of each one 
of the Territories over which the dispute has arisen, and both parties, after the 
election, harmoniously agreed on all the Federal laws required for their organiza 
tion. The Territories will remain in all respects the same, whether the revolution 
shall succeed or shall fail. The condition of slavery in the several States will 
remain just the same whether it succeed or fail. There is not even a pretext for 
the complaint that the disaffected States are to be conquered by the United States 
if the revolution fail; for the rights of the States, and the condition of every hu¬ 
man being in them will remain subject to exactly the same laws and forms of ad¬ 
ministration, whether the revolution shall succeed or fail. In the one case, the 
States would be federally connected with the new confederacy ; in the other, they 





14 


•would, as now, be members of the United States; but their constitutions and laws, 
customs, habits, and institutions in either case will remain the same. 

“ It is not necessary to add to this incontestible statement the further fact that 
the new President, as well as the citizens through whose sufferages he has come 
into the administration has always repudiated all designs whatever, and whenever 
imputed to him and them of disturbing the institution of slavery as it exists under 
the Constitution and laws. The case now would not be fully presented if I were 
to omit to say that any such effort on his part would be unconstitutional, and all 
his actions in that direction would be prevented by the proper authority, even 
though they were assented to by Congress and the people.” , 

Here is the language of the President on the 4th of March, 
1861: 

“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by 
the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and 
personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable 
cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary ha3 
all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all 
the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one 
of those speeches when I declare that ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to 
interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I 
have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. * ” 


In the President’s message to the special Congress which met 
in July 1861, Mr. Lincoln declares that “ after the rebellion shall 
have been suppressed, the Executive deems it proper to say, it 
will be his purpose then, as ever, to be guided by the Constitu¬ 
tion and laws,” and that it may be expected he will adhere to 
the positions taken in the inaugural address. He adds: 

“He desires to preserve the Government that it may be administered for all as 
it was administered by the men who made it. Loyal citizens everywhere have the 
right to claim this of their Government; and the Government has no right to 
withhold or neglect it. It is not perceived that, in giving it, there is any coercion, 
any conquest, or any subjugation in any just sense of those terms.” 


Well, Mr. Speaker, how long were the Administration true to 
these their solemn, public, and reiterated pledges ? Why, sir, 
just until on the faith of these solemn assurances a million of men 
were induced to abandon the pursuits of peace, and rush into 
the armies of their country to tight in the sacred cause of con¬ 
stitutional government. Then, when the physical arm of the 
Government was deemed sufficiently strong for the overthrow 
of the South, the mask is cast off, a new purpose and object for 
the war is boldly avowed and proclaimed. The hideous form 
and repulsive features of abolitionism were at first disguised in 
the deceptive and alluring garb of patriotism. It was no longer 
to be a war for the preservation of the Union under the Consti¬ 
tution, but in reality for its destruction, and in the forum of con¬ 
science as well as in that of the supreme law,' places the radicals 
in the attitude of rebellion and revolution. 

Of the abolitionists as a party, nearly a quarter of a century 
ago the true character was happily touched off by the pencil of 
Henry Clay. He says: 





15 


‘ them the rights of property are nothiDg, the deficiency of the powers of 
the General Government is nothing, the acknowledged and incontestible powers of 
the States are nothing. . Civil war, a dissolution of the Union, and the overthrow 
of a Government in which are concentrated the proudest hopes of the civilized 
world, are nothing. A single idea has taken possession of their minds, and onward 
they pursue it, overlooking all barriers, reckless and regardless of all consequences.” 

This party was then small and insignificant, but its numbers 
have increased until we now behold it numerous and influential 
enough to control the administration of the Government. Their 
influence was at first felt in interfering with the conduct of the 
war, and in ostracizing and excluding from command the gener¬ 
als who had manifested a respect for the Constitution and who 
had shown skill in the field. They were not satisfied with pass¬ 
ing a bill offering protection and freedom to the slaves of rebel 
masters who should come within our lines, not satisfied with 
directing the physical power of the country to the suppression 
of armed resistance to the authority of the Government, but 
they proceeded to carry the war directly against the property, 
the homes, the firesides of peaceful non-combatant residents of 
seceded States. This was in violation, not only of the Federal 
Constitution, but of every principle of public law. While the 
effect of this policy has been to unite the South, the proclama¬ 
tions of the 22d and 24th of September, 1862, and of the 1st of 
January, 1863, have signally failed to disturb the relation of the 
slave beyond the hostile presence of our armies. The President, 
it is true, made a timid and weak resistance to the adoption of 
this policy, but the abolition pressure was imperative, and at 
length successful. 

A measure involving such an utter disregard of party pledges, 
such a violent casting aside of constitutional obligations, such 
diametrical opposition to the recognized principles and to the 
usages of war, and such a thorough adaptation to widen instead 
of healing the breach occasioned by secession, could not be 
expected to be received with unquestioning acquiescence on the 
part of the law-abiding, Constitution-loving masses of the North. 
Hence vast stretches of authority are usurped, the indefinite 
power of arrest is assumed, and the time-honored writ of habeas 
corpus is suspended. 

Thus, upon the alleged ground of the insufficiency of the ordi¬ 
nary processes of law to restrain disloyal practices, the military 
power is raised into a superiority to the civil, and martial law 
is extended over the whole country. Persons not military are 
made liable to arrest without legal process, in a summary man¬ 
ner, upon the indefinite charge of “ disloyal practices.” When 
so arrested they are also denied the privilege of that hereditary 
and constitutional shield of the liberty of the citizen, the writ of 
habeas corpus . Has it, then, come to this, that in a Government 
of the people the people are less worthy to be trusted than their 
rulers? In a nation the freest and most enlightened upon earth 





16 


is the citizen to be told by the petty agents of his own creation 
that his liberty is not safe in his keeping, and that they, through 
an assumed superior intelligence, must take it in special charge ? 
Sir, what man worthy of the name of freeman will be reconciled 
to the loss of his priceless birthright of liberty, regulated by law, 
by any such tyrant’s plea as that ? I believe I do not misappre¬ 
hend the character of my countrymen, and that they will not 
and ought not thus to submit to be spoiled of their dearest rights 
by any usurping hand. What? are the people to be deluded 
with the idea that their liberties are to be preserved or that the 
Government is to be saved in the act of their destruction ? Are 
those sacred fireside rights which the Anglo-Saxon brought with 
him from his native forests in Germany, and which he has never 
since lived without, to be trampled in the dust on any such 
flimsy and specious pretext as this? And have the sad days of 
the Roman time under the forms of the republic come upon us 
so soon? Are we to be the sport of imperial rule? 

Sir, our institutions of government are created and defined by 
law, and to the rigid observance of the law we must hold their 
administrators. This is our only safety, as the history of free 
States has always taught, because it shows that “ power is ever 
stealing from the many to the few.” It is then a new thing in 
our history that the ordinary processes of law are not found suf¬ 
ficient to secure the Government in the exercise of its legitimate 
and proper authority. It is not only a new thing among our¬ 
selves, but is unprecedented in the history of that people from 
which chiefly we derive our origin, and from wdiicli we have in¬ 
herited largely our laws and free institutions. Hever in the his¬ 
tory of England, even in the most turbulent times of revolution, 
has it been conceded to the monarch to arrest persons not mili¬ 
tary without warrant issued upon legal charges preferred under 
oath. This the common-law proceeding dates back so far in Eng¬ 
land that it cannot be determined when it began. It is, however, 
guarantied by Magna Charta. Charles I did, indeed, try the ex¬ 
periment of arbitrary arrests upon vague and indefinite charges, 
like those of “ disloyal practices,” not preferred upon oath, but 
upon the mere arbitrary motion of himself or members of the 
Privy Council. The subversion of the constitution and substitu¬ 
tion of the will of the monarch was also attempted to be effected 
by the Courts of High Commission and Star Chamber, which re¬ 
sembled the “courts-martial or military commission” of Mr. 
Lincoln’s proclamation, in not being governed by the common 
law or immemorial customs and acts of Parliament, but admit¬ 
ting for law the proclamations of the Executive and grounding 
their judgment upon them. The English nation, however, re¬ 
pelled the attempt with indigination ; and by the celebrated Pe¬ 
tition of Right arbitrary imprisonments and the exercise of mar¬ 
tial law were abolished, and the obnoxious courts suppressed. 

Rut it will be -said that this proclamation of the 24th Septem- 



17 


ber does not contravene Magna Charta, since it is confirmed by 
act of Congress. The answer to this is that the act of Con¬ 
gress itselt contravenes the provisions of the Constitution, the 
paramount law. When we turn to article four of the Amend¬ 
ments to that instrument, we are met by this stern requirement: 

“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 
.against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant 
shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation , and particularly 
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” 

Article six also requires that 

“In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and 
public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall 
have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, 
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with 
the witnesses against him ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in 
his favor, and to have the assist! me of counsel for his defense.” 

* 

The exercise of such arbitrary powers it was which lost Charles 
I of England the confidence of his subjects, and led to the estab¬ 
lishment of new guarantees against such flagrant abuses on the 
part of the monarch. The practice of a similar tyranny in France, 
under the lettres de cachet , had filled the dungeons of the Bastile 
with innocent victims, until at the commencement of the reign 
of Louis XYI that hated prison was leveled to the ground in the 
indignant uprising of an outraged people. 

What right, sir, has Congress to authorize arbitrary arrests in 
the face of the prohibitions of the Constitution? Are these pro¬ 
hibitions without meaning? or were they not on the contrary de¬ 
signed to meet just such exigencies as those in which the country 
is now r placed, when, together with the possession of the physical 
and political power of the country, a party finds itself under the 
temptation to resort to usurpation in order to maintain its as¬ 
cendency ? The Administration cannot, as in England, have re¬ 
course to the omnipotence of the Legislature to justify this abuse 
of power. The British Parliament is possessed of a legal om¬ 
nipotence from the nature of the constitution, which is that of a 
consolidated Government and a monarchy. Even there, how¬ 
ever, the subject has an adequate security against any violation 
of those great principles of personal security, personal liberty, 
and private property, which constitute the so much and justly 
lauded privileges of Britons, because the people themselves, 
through their representatives in the Commons, make a prepon¬ 
derant power in the Parliament, and the venerable landmarks of 
the'rights of the subject have long been held sacred from en¬ 
croachment. But in this country the national Legislature has no 
such large and unlimited powers. A written charter confers ex¬ 
pressly all the powers which the Congress possesses, and clearly 
there is no authority contained in any of its provisions to arrest 
any one “ without probable cause,” and “ upon oath or affirma- 


18 


tion.” Neither will the extension by Congress of martial law 
over the whole country cover the case. There is the same defi¬ 
ciency of authority here as before. Says Chief Justice Black- 
stone in his Commentaries: 

“Martial law, which is built upon no settled principles, but is entirely arbitrary 
in its decision, is, as Sir Mathew Hale observes, in truth and reality no law, but 
something indulged rather than allowed as a law. The necessity of order and dis¬ 
cipline in an army is the only thing which can give it countenance, and therefor it 
ought not to be permitted in time of peace, when the king’s courts are open for all 
persons to receive justice according to the laws of the land.” 

Does this “necessity of order and discipline” which this dis¬ 
tinguished authority lays down as the only admissible ground for 
the application of martial law apply also to civilians outside of 
the Army? Are not the courts as to them, both State and Fed¬ 
eral, except in the States in rebellion, just as opan now for the 
prosecution of offences against the Government and laws of the 
United States as under the condition of the most profound peace? 
The contrary will not be asserted. There is therefore no necessity 
for this extraordinary stretch of authority, except in districts, if 
there be any such, in which the regular administration of justice 
by the civil tribunals is rendered impracticable by the operations 
of w r ar; and this is nowhere beyond the lines of the Army, except 
as to persons in the military service. 

The rules and articles of war and the acts of Congress for hold¬ 
ing courts-martial (chiefly that of the 14th of April, 1814) by 
which the Army is governed, were framed chiefly from the Eng¬ 
lish system upon the same subject. Its principles and modes of 
proceeding are quite different from those of the common law, and 
in reference to them Blackstone remarked: 

“One of the greatest advantages of the English law is that not only the crimes 
themselves which it punishes, but also the penalties which it inflicts, are ascertained 
and notorious; nothing is left to arbitrary discretion ; the king by his jfhdg.es dispen¬ 
ses what the law has previously ordained; but is not himself the legislator.” 

The learned commentator then takes occasion to regret that in 
being deprived of those advantages and being subject to military 
law, the soldier is placed in a condition of servitude; “ for,” said 
he,“ Sir Edward Coke will inform us that it is one of the genuine 
marks of servitude to have the law, which is our rule of action, 
either concealed or precarious.” 

Another extraordinary measure inaugurated by the proclama¬ 
tion, and which constitutes the climax of despotic power assumed 
by the executive, is the suspension of the whit of habeas corjpus 
during the existance of the rebellion. Having usurped the pow¬ 
er of arrest “ without due process of law” in the face of the ex¬ 
press prohibitions of the Constitution, it was an offense of gigantic 
magnitude for the President to suspend the operation of this great 
and important defense of the liberties of the citizen. In those bit¬ 
ter and unscrupulous civil contests which were waged between the 
party of prerogative and that of the privileges of the people, which 


19 


inflamed the heart of England in the middle of the seventeenth 
century, the ancient common-law right of the habeas corpus was 
disregarded by Charles I, as well as by the Long Parliament. 
This was during the struggle between the Crown and the people. 
But after the constitution was settled as to this particular by the 
Petition of Right, and the 29 th of Car. II, no sovereign had after¬ 
wards temerity enough to attempt an abuse of this great bulwark 
of English liberties. It is true that in a few instances within the 
history of the nation for two centuries back this great writ has 
been suspended by Parliament, the only power which could le¬ 
gally suspend it. The principal of these was during the transi¬ 
tion from the reign of James II to that of William and Mary, in 
1688. All through the American war of independence the friends 
and sympathizers of the American cause were bold in their con¬ 
demnation of Sie policy and measures of the crown, and it was 
held that this was but the simple exercise of the unquestioned 
right of the subject. Burke, Fox, and Pitt all thundered in the 
ears of the court their eloquent denunciations of the tyranny and 
injustice of Government toward their countrymen in the colonies, 
and no one ever proclaimed a “ military necessity ” of silencing 
them by forcible restraint of their persons. 

The remarks which I have made in regard to arbitrary arrests 
apply with equal force to the suppression of journals which have 
spoken out in condemnation of these despotic acts of the Admin¬ 
istration. Blackstone says, “ the liberty of the press is indeed 
essential to a free State.” The liberty of the press was our com¬ 
mon-law right as British colonists, and for its protection, together 
with the freedom of speech and the right of peaceably assem¬ 
bling and petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, 
the first amendment was added to the Constitution. These re¬ 
straints are necessary, it is said, because by the indulgence ot 
free discussion the arm of the Government is weakened, and its 
ability to carry on the war seriously impaired. But what an 
argument is this in a country of constitutional liberty, and where 
public opinion forms the substratum of all our institutions ! And 
what an argument at a time when, above all others, free speech 
and a free press are most needed to point out and drive back the 
robbers who are daily carrying off the public treasure! It is an 
old precept to resist the beginnings of evil. It was Rousseau 
that said, “ Liberty might be acquired, but could never be re¬ 
covered.” 

In addition to all these aggressions the war policy of the Ad¬ 
ministration has saddled the country with a debt which at the 
termination of the struggle will exceed in magnitude that of 
Great Britain contracted in a century of foreign wars. The 
aggregate of the appropriations on the 4th of March, 1863, was 
$2,000,277,000. The appropriations are first or last the real ex¬ 
penditure. The .total of the English debt is a fraction less than 
$4,000,000,000. The English debt bears an interest of three per 




20 


cent., while the debt of the United States when consolidated will 
reach six per cent. This gigantic debt will tax enormously the 
earnings of industry for generations, while the substitution ot 
paper money for the gold and silver currency established bv the 
Constitution* has destroyed the relation of debtor and creditor; 
has destroyed legal securities, as well as the earnings of industry 
in ordinary investments. It has increased largely the prices of 
Government supplies, thus enhancing greatly the cost of the war. 
It bears severely upon the investments of widows and orphans, 
and is sacrificing the business of the country in the general ruin 
of the currency. This flood of assignats has stimulated into still 
more pernicious action all that crowd of corrupt and hateful in¬ 
fluences which follow in the wake of war as sharks in that of the 
pestilent ship. The miserable crowd of contractors and specula¬ 
tors on the sufferings of their country, like so many leeches, are 
sucking out the life-blood of the nation, while preaching the un¬ 
questioning support of the Administration and all its reckless and 
abortive measures as the true test of patriotism. 

The acts of the Administration, under the double influence of 
Republican and abolition principles, are marked by singular ter¬ 
giversation and inconsistency. In their Chicago platform, as in 
all authoritative declarations, they declared it to be their inten¬ 
tion not to interfere with slavery in the States, and to administer 
the Government according to the Constitution. In the territorial 
governments organized shortly after Mr. Lincoln’s advent to power,' 
in New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, wdien they had the power 
to insert a provision for the exclusion of slavery, no such exclu¬ 
sion was inserted ; and although the Crittenden resolutions were 


* Daniel Webster says : 

“ But wbat is meant by the ‘constitutional currency,’ about -which so much is 
said? What species or forms of currency does the Constitution allow, and what 
does it forbid? It is plain enough that "this depends on what we understand by 
currency. Currency, in a large and perhaps in a just sense, includes not only gold 
and silver and bank notes, but bills of exchange also. It may include all that 
adjusts exchanges and settles balances in the operations of trade and business. 
But if we understand by currency the legal money of the country, and that which 
constitutes a lawful tender for debts, and is the statute measure of value, then, un¬ 
doubtedly, nothing is included but gold and silver. Most unquestionably there is 
no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender, in this country, under the authority 
of tjiis Government or any other, but gold and silver, either the coinage of our own 
mints or foreign coins, at rates regulated by Congress. This is a constitutional 
principle, perfectly plain, and of the very highest importance. The States are 
expressly pVohibited from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment 
of debts; and although no such express prohibition is applied to Congress, yet, as 
Congress has no power granted to it in this respect but to coin money and to 
regulate the value of foreign coins it clearly has no power to substitute paper or 
anything else for coin as a tender in payment of debts and in discharge of contracts. 
Congress has exercised this power fully in both its branches. It has coined money, 
and still coins it; it has regulated the value of foreign coins, and still regulates their 
value. The legal tender, therefore, the constitutional standard of value, is estab¬ 
lished, and cannot be overthrown. To overthrow it would shake the whole sys¬ 
tem.”— Webster's Works, vol. 4, pages 270, 271. 


i 




21 


rejected by Congress until the first battle of Bull Run, they were 
passed with great unanimity after that event. Notwithstanding 
these tacts, however, and also Mr. Lincoln’s message to Congress 
exhorting that body to prosecute the war solely for the restora¬ 
tion of the Union, we soon find leaders of the party introducing 
into Congress bills for the conversion of rebel States into Terri 
tories, tor an indiscriminate confiscation of estates, and waging 
the war for the liberation of the slaves. We also find Mr. Lin¬ 
coln, under these influences, recommending in his annual message 
in December, 1862 , the call of a convention to secure the eman¬ 
cipation of the slaves in the States; and, without waiting for 
sucli constitutional authority, under the pressure of the abolition 
portion of his party, proceeding to issue proclamations of eman¬ 
cipation. Could human weakness and inconsistency further go? 

The great and paramount object of all Governments is the 
protection of private property. It is the great basis of all civili¬ 
zations. Without its recognition and stable protection there can 
be no such thing even as communities. The framers of the 
Constitution, regarding history as philosophy teaching by ex¬ 
ample, aimed to insert in that instrument a clause which, even 
in the midst of the most fearful commotions and party violence, 
■would prevent a re-enactment on this continent of those barbar¬ 
ous confiscations which marked the civil wars of the Romans, 
and are a stigma upon the history of modern Europe. They 
therefore, in the third section of the third article, used this clear 
and unmistakable language, that— 

“iVo attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except dur¬ 
ing the life of the person attainted 

In disregard of this constitutional prohibition, this House 
passes a joint resolution explanatory of the confiscation act for 
the purpose of confiscating the fee and making it operative 
against the innocent as well as the guilty. 

Mr. Speaker, I have thus endeavored to state the origin and 
true theory of the government, and to assign with fidelity the 
causes of the present troubles. I have also noticed the measures 
with which the administration has undertaken to meet the extra¬ 
ordinary emergency, and have pointed out their unconstitutional 
and pernicioiis character, and their utter deficiency in a true 
policy. Since we have thus far failed in reducing the rebellion 
with the unconstitutional weapons of restraints upon the liberty 
of the person, of speech, and of the press—of martial law, eman¬ 
cipation proclamations, and confiscation acts, it is fitting for us 
now to inquire whether the armory of Government does not 
furnish others of more potent energy and efficiency. There can 
indeed be no permanent peace upon those principles. The com¬ 
plete conquest and subjugation of an intelligent and high-spirited 
people history amply demonstrates to be a work of long dura¬ 
tion and uncertain result. Superior resources and physical power 




22 


are sufficient to scatter military organizations, but it is quite 
a different thing to conquer and to subjugate. The history of 
the Anglo-Saxon race is full of illustrations of this truth. The 
Normans conquered that race at the battle of Hastings in 1066 , 
but after a struggle of six hundred years the Saxon element had 
reasserted itself, and the English constitution was restored as it 
was before the Conquest. A great standing army would be 
neeessrry to keep the South in subjection, and she would occupy 
a position to the rest of the Union such as Ireland and India 
occupy to England, as Hungary to Austria, and as Poland to 
Russia. 

This war was inaugurated to put down military usurpation. 
The calm, just and ever patriotic judgment of a confiding people 
approved and cheered it on in its progress. It was not intended 
to be a war against communities, individuals, or their property 
and rights, but a war in defence of the Constitution, the laws, 
and for the preservation of the Union. This is still its true and 
proper object, and to this, if we would look for an early and 
stable peace, the Administration must return. The proclama¬ 
tions must be withdrawn, the confiscation acts repealed, and we 
must get back to the resolution adopted by Congress after the 
first battle of Bull Bun. Mark well its clear and patriotic im¬ 
port : 

“ Resolved , That the .present deplorable divil war has been forced upon the coun¬ 
try by the disunionigts of the Southern States, now in arms against the constitu¬ 
tional Government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency 
Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its 
duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on their part in any spirit 
of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation or purpose of over¬ 
throwing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, 
but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve 
the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unim¬ 
paired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.” 

Upon the principles upon which the war is now waged, there 
is no rallying-point for Union sentiment in the South. It is unu¬ 
sual for an invading army to advance without propositions of 
peace. Our Army has none. Unconditional submission to an 
enemy whose declared purpose is the destruction of their rights 
of property and social system is all that is offered them. Is it 
surprising that Union sentiment should be crushed out, that the 
South should be united almost to a man, and that its resistance 
should be intensified and embittered with an energy derived from 
desperation ? 

Above all things, Mr. Speaker, do I desire a restoration of the 
Union as it was.* It is the grand experiment of civil liberty. 
Any sacrifice, any concession, any appropriation should be made 
to prevent its failure. We have a great mission, and no trivial 
consideration of the negro, or any other, should be permitted to 
interrupt it. It is our mission to demonstrate the problem of 
self-government, and to revolutionize other Governments by the 



23 


silent force of a great example. While the common law and all 
tlie privileges and. advantages of civilization have been trans¬ 
ferred to this continent, nothing but the stable continuance of 
our admirable system of government is needed to attract within 
it the people of every clime. 

Never were an aggregation of free and independent political 
communities better circumstanced geographically for the purposes 
of such a union. On a scale of magnitude far surpassing the 
petty States of Greece, Switzerland, and the Low Countries on 
the Rhine, there was, as between themselves, the happiest adapt¬ 
ation for a common government. Looking on the north and east 
to New England, there was there no conflict of pursuits w T itli any 
other section. Her climate was rigorous and her soil sterile, and 
her only means of development were found in commerce and in 
manufactures. She was in a position to do the carrying trade for 
her neighbors, and to work up their raw material. Crossing 
westward into the State of New York, we find her the possessor 
of great and peculiar resources, and of the national metropolis, 
designed by nature as the commercial emporium of the continent. 
A little further south was Pennsylvania, filled with iron and coal, 
and favored perhaps more highly than any individual State with 
a combination of agricultural, mineral, manufacturing, and com¬ 
mercial advantages. To the west, in the great valley of the 
Mississippi, the production of the cereals was a wonder. But 
none of the States thus noticed produced rice, sugar-cane, cotton, 
or gold. These, again, were the peculiar products of the States 
lying between Pennsylvania and the Gulf, and of those on the 
Pacific. There was, therefore, among the several States those 
elements of unity, an adaptation to supply each other’s wants, 
and a mutual dependence. They w T ere further tied together by 
great rivers reaching far into the interior, and facilitating inter¬ 
course between remote points. There were on the Atlantic slope 
the Hudson, the Susquehanna, the Delaware—to omit others of 
minor name—and there was in the heart of the continent the 
great inland sea of the Mississippi, flowing due south from almost 
the arctic circle, and stretching his long arms of the Missouri and 
the Ohio from the Allegheny to the Rocky mountains. The 
great chain of the Alleghenies, extending from the lakes to the 
Gulf of Mexico, seemed also designed by Providence as another 
physical bond of union. There was in all this evidently the 
most admirable foundation for union, for that very Government, 
indeed, adopted by our fathers, combining in itself all the ad¬ 
vantages of a consolidated empire for all purposes of defense 
against foreign aggression, and containing within the State or¬ 
ganizations every provision to meet the wants of particular lo¬ 
calities. Experience proved its great economy and eminent ben¬ 
efits ; and the people of every State grew warm in their attach¬ 
ment to it, and wished for its perpetuity. The North had profited 
largely by her connection with the South, and by every variety 






21 


of exchange. She had profited largely by the products of slave 
labor. New England, with her barren soil and severe climate, 
had yet, by her manufacturing industry with a tariff protection, 
and her coastwise and foreign trade, grown rich and more popu¬ 
lous than any other portion of the Union of the same area. She 
had also disproportionate power for shaping the policy of the 
country to her own advantage in having with a small territory a 
representation of singular inequality in the Senate. With a to¬ 
tal population of 3,135,283 she speaks through the mouths of 
twelve Senators in the national Legislature; while the State ot 
New York, with a population of 3,880,735, is heard only through 
two. In view of the. superior benefits which the North has de¬ 
rived from the Union, it must be admitted to be the expression 
of a grave truth that the Cavalier held the cow while the thrifty 
Puritan steadily milked her. 

This war will be prosecuted, and its great purpose should be 
peace upon the basis of the Constitution. If we fail to accom¬ 
plish this, through the obstinate and misdirected policy of the 
Administration, we shall have no permanent Government left in 
the North under the present Constitution. The cohesive power 
which constitutes the national bond would be gone, and with it 
would speedily perish the national debt. In the competition for 
commerce resulting in a line of free ports from the capes of the 
Chesapeake to the Rio Grande our foreign commerce, too, would 
dwindle, and the revenue derived therefrom would perish. It 
would be impossible in congressional legislation to reconcile the 
commercial interests of New York and the agricultural interests 
of the Northwest with the manufacturing industry of New Eng¬ 
land and Pennsylvania; free trade and protection alike would 
be obstinately demanded. An unceasing border war would be 
the inheritance of the States bounded by the line of separation. 
It is a still graver consideration that in the .event of such a ca¬ 
lamity no man of reflection can wink so fast as not to see that a 
portion of the States must become reunited by the instincts of 
empire, as well as by every consideration of interest, of trade, 
commerce, and security. Cast your eye over the map of* the 
States, and you see that all the rivers, from the Hudson to the 
Rio Grande, have their outlet to the ocean through the southern 
States. The trade of the lakes, which is alone greater than all 
our foreign commerce, reaches tidewater 'west of New England, 
while that of the great basin of the Mississippi, with its tributa¬ 
ries, comprising fifty thousand miles of boatable navigation, can 
find its way cheaply by the currents alone to the Gulf of Mexico. 
The products of this mighty valley and the cotton of the South 
constitute the basis of the commerce of New York. It is idle to 
suppose that she can exist without a union with these grand di¬ 
visions. 

Pennsylvania must have a market for her iron and coal, and 
the products of her varied industry; while the Northwest is sure 



25 


to follow her destiny marked by the water-courses, as every pro¬ 
ducing and trading people that had the power have always done 
from the days of the Phenicians down to the present time. 

While the South has all the resources and geographical advan¬ 
tages which I have described, in all probability it cannot exist 
alone, even it successful, for any great length of time as an inde¬ 
pendent Power. A union with the northwestern and middle 
States would become a necessity. For the present, perhaps for 
a generation, the. vast stake which European Governments 
have in the division of a government, based upon the 
popular will, and in the article of cotton, would secure pro¬ 
tection to the southern confederacy. The keen eye of com¬ 
mercial and manufacturing capital, with the prejudice against 
slavery, would,’ however, render its life a short one. The world 
at large is too much interested in the growth and supply of cot¬ 
ton to trust, as heretofore, almost exclusively to the South for that 
supply in the future. European capital and enterprise, stimulated 
by the lessons of experience, will, within the next quarter of a 
century, open up commercial communications, plant settlements, 
and make the cotton grow in the interior of Africa, Australia, 
the East Indies, as well as Mexico, Central America, and the ad¬ 
jacent isles of the sea. When the supply is thus secured equal 
to the demand, independently of the South, then will the truce 
be at an end. An alliance, holy or political, would again send 
an army on the march, and the “ anaconda ,” would then become 
a stern reality. The policy, then, which governs the war and is 
carving out the dissolution of the Union, if adhered to, is but 
laying the foundation for a Union in the valley of the Mississippi, 
as an inevitable consequence and result. 

The question of slavery in the Territories led to the disturbance 
of a harmony which might otherwise have been perpetual. The 
Chicago platform inaugurated revolution. The States being 
sovereignties, and the public domain having been acquired by 
deeds of cession, by purchase, and by conquest, in the absence 
of a judicial decision recognizing the equal rights of the South 
in the Territories, upon what principle of equity or justice could 
that equality be denied? A legal, constitutional right, however 
recognized, it was well known could not have resulted in the 
spread of slavery; and yet a denial of it is the sad pretext of 
our troubles. Washington, impressed with a full knowledge of 
the antagonisms of society and the violence of party struggles 
for supremacy, at the close of his administration, still doubtful of 
the permanency of the experiment, warned his countrymen to a 
constant vigilance for its preservation. Jetferson, with that un¬ 
erring sagacity which characterized his knowledge of human na¬ 
ture, admonished the people of the whole country that the array 
of parties upon a geographical line would result in the destruction 
of the Government. 

This war cannot last forever. Sooner or later contending par- 


26 


ties must become exhausted, the armies dwindled, credit destroyed, 
the land filled with graves and clothed in mourning, and an ad¬ 
justment upon some terms will be the only cure for the evil. 
The uncompromising obstinacy of Charles I lost him his head; 
that of James II his crown; that of George III his colonies. 
Shall these States again be lost by imitating the example ? Shall 
we not rather learn a lesson from that chapter in our history 
in 1812, when Mr. Clay, aided by Mr. Calhoun, pressed the war 
of that period upnn the Administration of Mr. Madison in resist¬ 
ance to the British pretension to the right of search? The war 
lasted for three years and some months. There was great sacri¬ 
fice of life and vast expenditure of money. During that period 
the Navy upon the Lakes, the Chesapeake and the Atlantic 
covered itself with imperishable glory, and our soldiers poured 
out their blood like water upon the river Baisin and the Thames, 
at Tippecanoe and Lundy’s Lane. And yet Mr. Clay, at the head 
of the American commission, met the British commissioners at 
Ghent, and there negotiated a treaty of peace without saying one 
word of the matter in controversy, and which yet was deemed* 
honorable and satisfactory. Nearly fifty years have elapsed since 
that period, and the right remains unadjusted to this day. In the 
mean time our relations with England, social and commercial, 
have grown more intimate and important. 

Mr. Speaker, there is everywhere an anxious and earnest look¬ 
ing forward to a termination of this contest. I believe there is 
no obstacle so potent against a return to peace as that spirit which 
has given a new policy and a new object to the war. To refuse, 
because of the institution of slavery in the southern States, to 
adhere to the Union of our fathers is all one as if we should re¬ 
fuse to treat with the Ottoman Porte or the Barbary Powers 
because the one is the sovereign of a nation recognizing polyga¬ 
my, and the other the slavery of the whites as well as the blacks. 
The man possessed with a single idea is of all the most unfitted 
for a statesman. That high character implies a condition of mind 
which contemplates things as they are, and which forbears the 
removal of a less mischief when this would be productive of a 
greater. He must aim in his policy at the production of the best 
good of society, but will carefully refrain from great, sweeping 
innovations, preferring to leave the correction of evils to the gen¬ 
tle hand of time, which, as Lord Bacon expresses it, “is the 
greatest innovator,” well assured that no Government can be suc¬ 
cessful which does not adapt its policy to the various characters 
of the people to be affected by it, and to its diversities of indus¬ 
try and sectional interests. 

Statesmen in every European Government may be impressed 
with the superiority of repulican institutions. They would, how¬ 
ever, be deemed infatuated to the last degree, if, taking advant¬ 
age of some partial indications among the people, they should 
seek to bring on a crisis. They, with better judgment, adhere to 


27 


the existing order of tilings, well knowing that changes, to he 
beneficial, must be permanent. It was not at a single bound that 
-England, the freest ot the monarchies, leaped from the fetters of 
the feudal system. That was the accomplishment only of centu¬ 
ries of struggles against the power of the barons, under the guid¬ 
ance ot enlightened princes, great statesmen, and able lawyers; 
and after all, some ot the most objectionable features of that sys¬ 
tem cling to her still. France, indeed, attempted, by a single 
convulsive effort, to shake from her the bondage under which 
she had groaned for centuries. She succeeded in obtaining a fe¬ 
verish interval of freedom, only to relapse into the old despotism; 
and now, with her journals silent and liberty prostrate, how much 
better is her condition than before the revolution of 1789 ? 

It was error, .maddened error, as well as treason in the South 
seceding as a remedy for her grievances. Great revolutions are 
on ^7 justified by great oppressions. The South should have re¬ 
mained in the Union, and fought her battle with the abolition 
phalanx under the segis of the Constitution. She laid the found¬ 
ation of the Government and reared its superstructure, and the 
broad folds of its flag furnished her ample protection. She should 
have done this from patriotic considerations and ancestral recol¬ 
lections, and sternly discarded the ignis fatuus counsels of her 
Tanceys. But let Hew England remember that the South, in 
this rebellion, is but acting out doctrines once maintained in all 
sincerity by herself. Let her remember that southern slavery 
vras planted by her own enterprise, her ships reaping nearly all 
the profits of the slave trade, which the Constitution protected 
till 1808. These reflections should incline us, while still prose¬ 
cuting the war for the support of the Constitution and the integ¬ 
rity of the Union, to moderate our demands according to the 
standard of justice. Let us all remember that it is an easy thing 
to destroy, but a long and difficult one to build up. The strug¬ 
gle for the establishment of human rights upon a positive basis 
of constitutional law has been long and tedious, successful, and 
again doubtful. 

Civilization may be said to have commenced its march on the 
plains of Judea, with the establishment of the Jewish theocracy. 
Spreading thence to India and Egypt, from the latter it was trans¬ 
ported to Greece, where it shone brightly in its classic literature, 
and in its efforts toward a system of self-government. Thence it 
was transferred to Borne, where it beamed with renewed luster. 
Pecular causes operating in Italy resulted at the same time in 
the Homan republic. These, the first recorded efforts for a dem¬ 
ocratic Government, possessed inherent defects, and both, at the 
period of the Christian era, were absorbed in the imperial despo¬ 
tism of Octavius Csesar. The empire ran its career of centuries 
till at length the hopes of the human race lay buried for a time in 
the tomb of the dark ages. They awoke again with the revival 
of learning in the twelfth century, and received an undying im- 


28 


petus in the ages of the Reformation, and discovery which followed. 
With the exception of the Italian republics, which possessed no 
enduring vitality, and at a later day those of Holland and 
Switzerland, monarchy, everywhere, the world over, was the only 
accepted form of polity. 

It was at length, after six thousand years of stuggles by the 
race for the attainment of a perfect Government, that our wise 
forefathers, struck with the favorable conditions for a renewal of 
the experiment, resolved to attempt it on this continent. Start¬ 
ing with the representative feature and the free principles of the 
English monarchy, they searched the storehouse of free common¬ 
wealths for enduring materials for the new structure. To the 
selection and arrangement of the political machinery which they 
needed, they brought qualifications never before equaled in the 
framers of States. Deep insight into human nature, the profound 
knowledge of history and of law, and unblemished patriotism 
were theirs. Their perfect work stands before us; nay, it is in 
our keeping. Oh! let us not, let us not, I implore you, permit 
the grand experiment to fail through any remissness or perversity 
of ours. 

It is indeed an easy thing to destroy; but to call into being, 
w r hetherin material affairs or in those of morals and politics, great 
and useful works, taxes the highest faculties and resources of 
man. It is especially so in framing the institutions of govern¬ 
ment. For this, the learned sage and the man versed in practi¬ 
cal affairs must join their anxious and patriotic labors. For the 
adoption, amid opposing interests, of any system, is needed the 
long and patient conference, the steady forbearance, the timely 
concession and compromise. The selfish principles must be held in 
check. A curb must be laid upon the passions. But .for the 
destruction of the same system it is needed only that we forbear 
the exercise of the virtues and benevolent affections and give 
full sway to the selfish principles. 

The temple of Diana of Ephesus was the boast of the ancient 
world. The treasures of kings and all the art skill of the times 
had been profusely lavished upon it to render it the richest and 
most magnificent of the structures of earth. Yet the torch of 
Eratosthenes, infatuated with the ambition of immortality, though 
it should be one of infamy, w r as sufficient in a few hours to lay it 
in ashes. 

Alas! that these reflections should find so practical an applica¬ 
tion in the events of the times. We had a good Government. 
We possessed already what revolutionists in other Governments 
set out to attain, and no pretensions to statesmanship should have 
been admitted which sought to jar the system or break it up. 

I have read of a knight of the middle ages who was the pos¬ 
sessor of a shield of extraordinary richness and workmanship. 
The material w r as of the finest gold, and the device w r as embla¬ 
zoned with the rarest skill of the artist. The whole was of march- 


29 


less beauty. It was yet disfigured by a single blemish. In an 
evil hour its possessor listened to the persuasions of an artificer 
who proposed to remove it by again subjecting it to the heat of 
the furnace. The experiment was made; but the same heat 
which removed the stain destroyed also the image upon the sheild, 
and the whole was reduced to a shapeless mass in the crucible. 
He might make a new shield of the gold, but the one so cunning¬ 
ly sculptured, and so highly prized, was gone, alas! forever. 
The people of the United States are in the position of the knight, 
and their priceless shield is their constitutional Government. 
The stain, if you will, is the institution of slavery. In the fires 
of civil war to which the empirical artists have resorted to re¬ 
move it, it may be obliterated, but the Government itself, under 
the operation^ will be dissolved. Hew Governments may indeed 
be formed of the materials, but that of the American fathers will 
be no more. 

Under Democratic rule, prior to the triumph of the Chicago 
platform, the nation was at peace, united, prosperous, and happy. 
Instead of a frightful civil war, desolating the land and filling 
with strife and bitterness the paths which lead to our dwellings, 
we pointed with pride to our national power, our commerce, 
our manufactures, our constitutional liberty; to our national 
monuments and works of art, which everywhere decorated the 
line of our progress, and were held up as the trophies of a Christ¬ 
ian civilization. 

But alas ! the change. Byron, the immortal poet, when wri¬ 
ting his immortal verse amid the ruins of the Boman empire, 
said : 

“Alas! the lofty city! and alas! 

Alas! for Tully’s voice, and Virgil’s lay, 

And Livy’s pictured page; but these shall be 
Her resurrection : all beside—decay.” 

In the gloom that covers the land, from the great Atlantic, 
where the light of the morning sun is first seen, to where his 
setting rays go down in the western ocean, without some patri¬ 
otic sacrifice to reestablish the broken columns of a once mighty 
Government, the time may not be far remote when the genius 
of American liberty may say, Alas! for the fame of Washing¬ 
ton and the memory of Franklin, the eloquent stories of Irving 
and of Prescott, the eloquence of Clay and of Webster; these 
may be her resurrection—all beside decay. 


I 


. 

























, 















































7 


SPEECH 


HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


THE REBELLION; 


DELIVERED 


IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 29, 1864. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
1867. 








































































































































































V 




I 


SPEECH 



The House having under consideration the bill in regard 
o the rebellious States— 

Mr. DAWSON said: 

Mr. Speaker : This is the earliest moment 
that I have been able to get the floor, to say 
that the gentleman who represents the district 
of Pittsburg [Mr. Moorhead] has seen proper 
to make my speech of the 24th of February 
the subject of one delivered by himself on the 
26th ultimo. I regret that I cannot characterize 
the gentleman’s effort as an argument. There 
is, indeed, very little in it that rises to that 
level. I had scarcely supposed it necessary 
to notice it on this floor. It is profuse in 
denunciations of disloyalty and of alleged sym¬ 
pathy with the rebellion. They constitute, 
indeed, the staple of his speech. While to 
me he disavows any intention of giving them 
a personal bearing, yet by implication they are 
regarded as personal, and his friends, at least, 
have made the application. 

In his opening remark, in the declaration 
that I had stated with great frankness and 
clearness the grounds of my opposition to the 
war , he has been guilty of a gross misstate¬ 
ment. In common with the party with which 
I have the honor to act, from its first outbreak 
I accepted the war as a necessity, and, while 
I have fearlessly condemned the policy which 
governs it, have never hesitated to support it 
within what I deemed the constitutional limits. 
The Democratic party have acted throughout 
these trying troubles with a magnanimity and 
greatness of purpose that no other political 
organization ever exhibited. They did try to 
avoid the war. War is the greatest of all na¬ 
tional misfortunes ; a civil war is the worst of 
wars, and this promised to be the most gigan¬ 


tic of civil wars. They opposed Abolitionism 
because they knew it would bring war and 
desolation in its train. They tried their utmost 
to bring all difficulties between the North and 
the South to a peaceful and an honorable settle¬ 
ment ; and they failed, not for want of will but 
want of power. When the war came, when 
the vindictive stubbornness of Abolitionists 
and secessionists left no choice but support of 
the Government by arms or submission to a 
rupture of the Union, the Democracy offered 
their blood and money for -the Union freely, 
without stint, without reservation, without 
measure. All they asked in return was that 
the party in power should conduct it honestly 
and fairly, for the purpose of restoring the 
Union and saving the Constitution. 

My colleague falls readily into the trite and 
well-worn style of reply which his party leaders 
have taught him. If any Democrat objects to 
an act of the Administration, he raises the cry of 
disloyalty,and insists that we should employ our 
time solely in denouncing secession. If we see 
the money of the nation squandered, the Consti¬ 
tution trampled upon,the laws disregarded,pub¬ 
lic liberty endangered, the right of suffrage taken 
away, the freedom of speech ana of the press 
restricted and punished, the Union for which 
we are bleeding laughed at as a thing of the past, 
we must, according to my colleague’s code of 
political morals, find no fault with those who do 
these wrongs, ask for no reform,seek no change. 
The respect I haveformy colleague forbids me 
to say that this is the mere twaddle of the 
demagogue. Such abject submission is only 
fit for a slave, wholly unfit for a freeman. 

He pronounces a eulogy upon General Cass. 
That great old man will be filled with grief 






4 


if he hears that an avowed and open Aboli¬ 
tionist has spoken of him in such terms. It 
was heartless cruelty to vex the evening of that 
venerable patriot’s life by praise which im¬ 
plies that his whole public career has been a 
false one. What has General Cass done to 
deserve such a eulogy from him ? He claims 
the right to speak of him because “ he and I 
once and again, but vainly, labored” to make 
him President. It is true that while my col¬ 
league professed to be a Democrat he also 
professed to be a Cass man. After the battle 
of BumaVista', however, he deserted his friend 
Cass and went over to General Taylor. The 
Whigs of that day were not willing that ‘ ‘ Rough 
and Ready” should be so unceremoniously ap¬ 
propriated, and my colleague early in 1848 
came back to General Cass with professions of 
foud devotion, quite as loud as they are now 
for Abraham Lincoln. After the October elec¬ 
tions of that year, which indicated that Gen¬ 
eral Taylor was to be the lucky candidate, my 
colleague’s zeal suddenly evaporated, and at 
the presidential election which followed he 
failed to vote for General Cass. 

My colleague has repeated what he alleges 
was said to him by General Cass. It is not 
in good taste, nor is it by any means a safe 
practice, to repeat private conversations. The 
old-fashioned notions of society which regu¬ 
lated intercourse between well-bred people 
always discountenanced the practice. I know 
my colleague with a manly bearing condemned 
the stone-breakers for their private revela¬ 
tions in the memorable contest in 1838, when 
he and I joined hands for the elevation of 
David R. Porter to the chief magistracy of 
Pennsylvania. But having assumed the re¬ 
sponsibility to repeat, he has no right to report 
him in a way which would make the General 
seem false to the faith of his fathers. I tell 
my colleague that that great man for more 
than twenty years had warned the country 
that the Union would be destroyed if a sec¬ 
tional President should be elected upon a 
platform which ignored the Constitution. After 
the elections of 1860 had shown that all his 
efforts to avoid such a result had failed, well 
might he have said, “We are lost and de¬ 
stroyed.” And my colleague quotes the lan¬ 
guage in which the patriot mourned over the 


triumph of Abolitionism as evidence that the 
patriot himself was an apostate to the unsul¬ 
lied record and noble example of his life. 

If the retirement of General Cass from 
office in the winter of 1861 be construed as 
just condemnation, how shall we construe that 
of Mr. Holt, who remained in his place as 
Secretary of War until the 4th of March, and 
gave his most earnest support to the Buchanan 
Administration, and at the close of it ex¬ 
pressed his most cordial approbation of all the 
President had done, as well as all he had 
forborne to do. In his letter of the 2d March, 
1861, filed in the State Department, resigning 
the office of Secretary of War at the close of 
Mr. Buchanan’s Administration, Mr. Holt 
bears attestation “to the enlightened states¬ 
manship and unsullied patriotism of the Pres- 
dent.” Mr. Holt has the confidence of Pres¬ 
ident Lincoln, and holds by his appointment 
at this time the responsible office of Judge 
Advocate General. General Dix, Secretary 
of the Treasury in the Cabinet of Mr. Bu¬ 
chanan, now a major general in the Army, 
appointed by Mr. Lincoln, in his address on 
retiring from the Cabinet and referring to Mr. 
Buchanan, declared himself “impressed with 
the purity of his motives, his conscientious¬ 
ness, his thorough acquaintance with the 
business of the Government in its most com¬ 
plex details, and his anxious desire that the 
unhappy questions which distract the country 
may have a peaceful solution.” 

It is surprising that my colleague in his assault 
upon the Administration of Mr. Buchanan, re¬ 
peats here in his place the stale charge that 
Floyd, the Secretary of War, stole a large 
portion of the public arms and transferred 
them to southern arsenals. The allegation is 
of little importance, except as far as it mis¬ 
represents a Democratic Administration. My 
colleague was a member of the Thirty-Sixth 
Congress, and should have known that a com¬ 
mittee constituted by the House, of which Mr. 
Stanton, a leading Republican, was chairman, 
and of which a majority were Republicans, 
reported on the 18th day of February, 1861, 
that the southern States received in 1860 less, 
instead of more, than the quota of arms tf> 
which they were entitled by law ; and that three 
of them, North Carolina, Mississippi, and 













o 


Kentucky, received no arms whatever, and 
this simply because they did not ask for them. 
I refer my colleague to the report, which will 
be found in the second volume of Reports of 
Committees of the House for 1860-61. 

It is stranger still that my colleague has re¬ 
peated that the Administration were derelict in 
not arresting the progress of the rebellion in 
its early stages. I reassert what I stated in my 
remarks of the 24th of February, that the law 
of the 28th of February, 1795, did not confer 
upon the President sufficient power to employ 
t military force to execute the laws and protect 
the public property, and that Mr. Buchanan, 
in his message to Congress on the 8th of Jan¬ 
uary, 1861, asked for such authority. Con¬ 
gress failed to grant it. My colleague was a 
member of that Congress. It is a sad com¬ 
mentary on the degeneracy of the times that 
i he should stand up here in the broad light of 
the heavens to revile the then President for 
omitting to do what he, among others who con¬ 
stituted a majority in Congress, failed to grant 
the power to do. This is a gross abuse of our 
patience, to which the boldness of Catiline 
would scarcely have been equal, and if he had 
been blessed with Catiline’s sagacity he would 
have seen that it was useless. 

The gentleman asserts that our financial 
success has become the wonder of the world. 
I agree with him that it is a wonder. On the 
1st of January, 1861, prior to the commence¬ 
ment of hostilities, the entire circulation of all 
the banks, North and South, was but a fraction 
over $202,000,000, while on the 1st of Jan¬ 
uary, 1863, in the States known as the loyal 
States, the circulation exceeded $238,500,000. 
Add to this the United States Treasury notes, 
interest-bearing Treasury notes, fractional cur¬ 
rency, and certificates of indebtedness, all of 
which circulate as currency, and it amounts to 
over $779,000,000. Put to that the issue of the 
new national banks, which in the aggregate 
swell the volume of circulation to more than 
$1,000,000,000, and he will learn the magni¬ 
tude of the Government issues. The legiti¬ 
mate business bf the entire country before the 
war could be transacted upon a circulation of 
a fraction over $202,000,000. Now, with a 
divided country and with commercial inter¬ 
course comparatively restricted, the circula¬ 


tion is increased to more than $1,000,000,000, 
deranging the measure of all values, one dollar 
in gold, the constitutional currency, command¬ 
ing $1 81 in greenbacks. Well may it be pro¬ 
nounced a wonder. Prior to 1861, the average 
daily clearances in the clearing-house of the 
city of New York were only about $22,000,000, 
while of late they have averaged over $115,- 
000,000, and have even run up as high as 
$146,000,000 in one day. My colleague should 
read much and reflect more before venturing 
to become a public instructor. 

But notwithstanding the freedom with which 
the gentleman impeaches the motives of classes 
as well as individuals, I look over his speech 
in vain for any condemnation of the usurpa¬ 
tions of those in authority, and especially for 
the slightest reflection upon the miserable 
crowd of sappers and miners—the contractors 
who have fattened themselves on the blood 
and tears and distresses of the nation—whose 
howl is ever fiercest for the war, whose policy 
it is to prolong it, and who denounce without 
measure all who seek to give it a proper direc¬ 
tion or a speedy termination. We, in Penn¬ 
sylvania, have seen these harpies feeding on 
the life-blood of the State, and my colleague 
knows—none knows better than he—the par¬ 
alyzing and consuming power of the frauds 
on which he chooses to preserve a silence so 
profoundly loyal. As a faithful sentinel on the 
watchtower of the nation, why has he never 
given notice that this same class of persons 
are gnawing its foundations away? It was 
Madame Roland who, when the caldron of the 
revolution was boiling over in France, weeping 
over the degradation of society and the frauds 
that were everywhere apparent, exclaimed: 
“O Liberty I” (and I might add, O loyalty!) 
“ what crimes are committed in thy name!” 

I have great respect, Mr. Speaker, for an 
argument, for statesmanlike views, and for a 
candid and honest difference of opinion ; but 
it required a great deal of assurance, almost 
the audacity of ignorance, to charge me with 
no expression of sympathy for the soldier who 
had defended his home and my home, when 
since the commencement of the session I have 
been laboring in his presence in obedience to 
the united sentiment and instruction of my 
party, and against the opposition of him and 












6 




his friends, to secure to the soldier a just com¬ 
pensation for his services. The soldier wants 
and is entitled to substantial aid, not mere ex¬ 
pressions of admiration and sympathy, but 
something to supply his physical wants and 
comforts, and especially those of his wife and 
children in his absence. This material aid the 
Democratic party as a unit have repeatedly of¬ 
fered on this floor, and as often has it been ruled 
out of order and defeated. He cannot forget, 
and if he does I refer him to the remarks which I 
had the honor to submit on the 17th of Feb¬ 
ruary, the occasion on which I offered a prop¬ 
osition to increase the soldiers’ pay, and de¬ 
clared that they had performed their duty with 
noble fidelity and zeal, and that Antietam, 
Vicksburg, Gettysburg, and Chattanooga were 
monuments of their bravery and patriotism 
that would bear their fame to a distant and ad¬ 
miring future, and were at least entitled to our 
justice. I may further say that on that occa¬ 
sion I declared that wherever any part of that 
great Army had moved on the water or upon 
the land its ranks had been filled with thou¬ 
sands of gallant Democrats, many of whom 
now sleep in soldiers’ graves. 

But, Mr. Speaker, such exhibitions are not 
uncommon in struggles like the present, when 
the country is in the throes of revolution. The 
tenor of his speech is the same which pervades 
a thousand speeches since these troubles com¬ 
menced. Notwithstanding the evils which 
civil wars bring to the masses, there are always 
some dashing patriots who scout the magnitude 
of the trouble, and flourish in the general ruin 
like the storm bird which careers in the tem¬ 
pest which is devastating the face of nature. 
Those parties are ever ready to impeach such 
as have the courage to expose corruption, and 
to labor in a spirit of true patriotism for the 
welfare of their country. 

My colleague would like to make the country 
believe that he is especially devoted to the pres¬ 
ervation of the Union, and to the prosecution 
of the war for that end. How sincere he is in 
his professions appears from his course on the 
following resolutions, which I had the honor 
to introduce on the 18th day of January last: 

“Whereas a great civil war like that which now 
afflicts the United States is the most grievous of all 
national calamities, producing, as it does, spoliation, 


bloodshed, anarchy, public debt, official corruption, 
and private immorality; and whereas the American 
Government cannot rightfully wage such a war upon 
any portion of its people except for the sole purpose 
of vindicating the Constitution and laws and re¬ 
storing both to their just supremacy ; and whereas 
this House on the 22d day of July, 1861, speaking in 
the name of the American people, in the face of the 
world, solemnly and truly declared that it was waged 
for no purpose of conquest or oppression, but solely 
to restore the Union with all the rights of the people 
and of the States unimpaired; and whereas in every 
.war, especially in every war of invasion, and most 
particularly if it be a civil war between portions of 
the same country, the object of it ought to be clearly 
defined, and the terms distinctly stated upon which 
hostilities will cease, and the advancing armies of ■ 
the Government should carry the Constitution and 
laws in one hand while they hold the sword in the 
other, so that the invaded party may have its choice | 
between the two : Therefore, 

“ Resolved , That the President be required to make 
known, by public proclamation or otherwise, to all 
the country that whenever any State now in insur- ! 
rection shall submit herself to the authority of the 
Federal Government as defined in the Constitution, 
all hostilities against her shall cease, and such State 
shall be protected from all external interference 
with her local laws and institutions, and her people 
shall be guarantied in the full enjoyment of all those 
rights which the Federal Constitution gave them. 

“Mr. Stevens moved to lay the preamble and 
resolution on the table. 

“Mr. Dawson demanded the yeas and nays. 

“Theyeas and nays were ordered. 

“The question was taken; and it was decided in 
the affirmative—yeas 79, nays 56; as follows: 

“YEAS—Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, 
John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Francis 
P. Blair, Jacob B. Blair, Boutwell, Brandegee, 
Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clark, Cole, 
Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, 
Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farns¬ 
worth, Fenton, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Higby, 
Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Ilulburd, 
Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kel¬ 
logg, Longyear, Lovejoy, Marvin, McBride, McClurg, 
Mclndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, 
Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Charles 
O’Neill, Orth, Patterson, Pike, Price, William H. 
Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John If. Rice, Edward 
H. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Smith, 
Smithers, Spalding, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Up¬ 
son, Van Valkenburg, ElihuB. Washburne, William 

B. Washburn. Whaley, Williams, Wilson, Windom, 
and Woodbridge—79. 

“ NAYS—Messrs. James C. Allen, Ancona, Augustus 

C. Baldwin, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Wil¬ 

liam G. Brown, Chanler, Coffroth, Cox, Dawson, 
Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, English, Finck, 
Ganson, Grider, Griswold, Hale, Hall, Harding, Har¬ 
rington, Benjamin G. Harris, Herrick, Holman, 
Hutchins, William Johnson, Ivernan, Lazear, Le 
Blond, Long, Marcy, McAllister, McDowell, Mc¬ 
Kinney, Middleton, William H. Miller, James R. 
Morris, Morrison, Nelson, Pendleton, Robinson, 
Ross, John B. Steele, Stiles, Stuart, Sweat, Voorhees, 
Wadsworth, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. 
White, Fernando Wood, and Yeaman—56. - 

“So the preamble and resolution were laid upon 
the table.” 











7 


It is thus seen that under the lead of the 
chairman of Ways and Means, my colleague 
[Mr. Moorhead] voted to lay these resolu¬ 
tions upon the table. By that vote he has 
declared that the war should not terminate 
though the people of the South should lay 
down their arms and submit to the authority 
of the Government. Although the war has 
lasted for nearly three years, and has spread 
death and desolation in its path, though it has 
broken up our industry, burdened us with 
mighty debts, shingled us with taxation, and 
demoralized our people; though it threatens 
the overthrow of our Republican system and 
the substitution of a despotism in its place, 
yet he refuses by his vote to adopt the only 
basis upon which peace and order and stability 
can be again secured. His policy means abo¬ 
lition, subjugation, and extermination. Fresh 
hecatombs must be offered to appease his 
insatiable appetite for blood. 

It is my solemn conviction that it is only 
upon the basis of those resolutions that this 
struggle can be brought to a peaceful and suc¬ 
cessful termination. To this conclusion we 
must come at last. Fanaticism and evil men 
may delay this result, and the country may 
have to be exhausted by the fires of civil war 
ere it becomes a reality. 

When the world, as related by the sacred 
historian, was buried under the deluge, and 
Noah and his family were the sole sufvivors of 
the human race, it will be recollected that the 
dove was . sent forth from the ark for some 
token of the reappearance of the land. After 
traversing for many days the waste of waters 
she found no rest for the sole of her foot, and 
returned again to Noah. A second time she 
was sent forth, and this time she brought back 
the olive-branch, the harbinger of certain sub¬ 
sidence of the waters. A third time she was 
sent for encouraging indications, and this time 
she returned no more, for the waters had 
retired to their recesses in the great deep, and 
the world was redeemed from the curse. Let 
the friends of constitutional government derive 
encouragement from the lesson. The sub¬ 
stance of the resolutions may yet, like the dove, 
find amid the deluge of domestic troubles a 
secure resting place, and restore a nation from 
the grasp of dissolution. 


My colleague, in the conclusion of his speech, 
says, “With the rebellion thus suppressed” 
this great country shall become the “asylum 
of the down-trodden and oppressed of every 
nation.” Here we join hands in cordial agree¬ 
ment. I only regret the memory as well as the 
record of the fact that my colleague, although 
the son of an Irishman, joined the Know- 
Nothing Lodge, and engaged in the crusade to 
deprive Irishmen of the rights of citizenship, 
and Catholics of their religious liberties. The 
Germans, too, he aimed to make the victims 
of his vengeance. But the countrymen of 
Emmett and Curren and Grattan still live, and 
are marching in thousands by the side of the 
hardy German, carrying the flag of the Union 
through blood and fire to defend for him that 
home from which he would have excluded them. 

My colleague for the greater part of his life 
has been a D emocrat, at least in profession. 
In those days abolitionism was powerless and 
| he was opposed to it. It comes with an ill 
I gt ace from him now, indeed. It is a slander to 
j say that the Democratic party has sympathy with 
the rebellion. It is a slander repeated by the 
lowest as well as those favored with position. 

It has been conceded by members of the 
Democratic party that there was provocation 
for the rebellion, but no justification. In my 
remarks of the 24th of February I character 
ized secession as treason. I endeavored to 
show that as a legitimate result of the State 
rights doctrine, secession and nullification 
have no warrant in the Constitution. Yet my 
colleague, with great facility of conclusion, 
pronounces this the doctrine of John C. Cal¬ 
houn. He has sadly changed since the days 
when he was a Democrat and claims to have 
been the friend of General Cass; the days 
when he prospered on the patronage of that 
great organization whose policy and patriotism 
upheld this Government for three quarters of a 
century, and which is still willing to shield it 
and save it or perish in the effort. Then he 
believed that if ever abolitionism got the Gov¬ 
ernment in its hands the country would rush 
headlong to ruin- Now he gloats over the 
fulfillment of the prophecy. Now he votes to 
give this Hall for a British enemy of the Union 
to lecture in, and assists to degrade the nation 
by approving a eulogy on John Brown, the 













traitor and the murderer. When he bows 
down in homage to George Thompson, the 
man who for thirty years has been plotting the 
destruction of this Republic, he should be 
careful how he applies the word disloyal, and 
make no reference to General Cass, the patriot 
who gave his days and nights during all that 
time to the safety of the nation. 

Mr. Speaker, the motives of the Democratic 
party require no defense. It has ever been 
the party of freedom and of progress, ever the 
defender of the Constitution, the laws, and the 
Union of the States. At the present moment 
that great old party, covered all over with 
truth, like the armor of Achilles, may well 
say, 11 Thrice is he armed who hath his quar¬ 


rel just.’ J That great party clings to the Con¬ 
stitution, nor does not change its principles 
nor its independence for the favor of a Presi¬ 
dent who is but temporarily ifi power. The 
one it regards merely as a man, the sun of 
whose official life is fast goingdown, and soon 
there will be an end of his power and impor- j 
tance. The other, the Constitution, is the | 
Magna Charta of their liberties, in which is I 
stored the hopes of the present and of millions j 
to come after us, and in the preservation of i 
which is centered the interests of the people i 
of every clime. 

I will now yield a part of my time to my j 
colleague [Mr. Moorhead] to reply to what 
I have said, if he desires to do so. 













SPEECH 


OS’ 





OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


'©N THE 


DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 31, 1866. 


WASHINGTON': 

^HINTED JBY LEMUEL TOWEES, 

186 6 , 








SPEECH 



JOHN L. DAWSON, 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


ON THE 

STATE OF 1 THE TINT I OUST, 


DELIVERED IN TIIE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 31, 1866. 


The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union—Mr. 
DAWSON said: 

Mr. Speaker: In venturing to claim the attension of the House 
and speak to the state of the nation, I feel it a circumstance de¬ 
manding my first and most grateful recognition that we are here 
once more to legislate for a united country. Next to the over¬ 
throw of the Government and the ruin of the country, the great¬ 
est of national calamities is a great civil war. With the legions of 
miseries which hang around the march of hostile armies four 
years of carnage had made us so familiar that we had begun to 
grow callous under the repeated exhibition. Death on the most 
extended scale, numbereng its victims by thousands, inflicted by 
the bullet, by disease, and by famine; mutilation in every horrid 
form; households stricken by the loss of friends, and under the 
dark shadow of inconsolate grief—these are but a few of the sad 
incidents to war, and most of all to war between brethren. 

For this propitious result I deem it proper to render, with 
prompt and unfaltering heartiness, my tribute of praise to that 
valor, skill, aud endurance of our armies which have been ex¬ 
hibited since the outbreak of the rebellion. It is a matter of 
common pride, and not of party triumph, that through all the 
trials of the war order in general prevailed in the North. Sup¬ 
ported by the love of country, the people of the North have pa- 
tiently borne, in the invasion of their rights of person and^property, 
and in new modes of trial, flagrant abuses of power. 

In common with the great party to which I belong, I have 
differed from the directors of our national councils as to the orig¬ 
inal necessity for the war; as to its purposes when undertaken ; as 
to the measures adopted for securing the proposed results ; and 
to the necessity of protracting the struggle, at such frightful ex¬ 
penditure of blood and treasure, to its recent close. I have 







4 


heretofore declared my faith in the efficacy of a different policy, 
in securing, at an early day, every legitimate and proper result; 
and I am still of opinion that, if the policy of peace upon the con¬ 
stitutional basis had been assented to, peace might have been 
had two years eailier, with a saving of the horrible bloodshed 
which we have witnessed since, involving a quarter of a million of 
lives ; with a saving of one half the war debt, and of that terrible 
and almost irreparable destruction of property, and that political 
and social disorganization which are the legacies entailed by the 
war upon the statesmen of to-day. But peace, though gained even 
at such tremendous sacrifices, is yet not the less precious, not the 
less grateful. * But now that the war has reached its close, it ap¬ 
pears to me that the country, with a view to the preservation of 
everything valuable in our institutions, had never more need of 
calm and enlightened action on the part of its rulers. In returning 
to that normal condition from which we were so rudely jostled 
by late occurrences, it is incumbent on us to meet the new con¬ 
dition of things with a spirit alike tenacious of established prin¬ 
ciples, and averse to precipitate change under the imputed 
character of reform. We must see to it that the grand features 
of our political system, conceived in such wisdom by the fathers, 
and the liberties of the American citizen, inherited mainly from 
our ancestors, may be preserved in their purity and vigor, with¬ 
out any taint of feebleness or stain upon their luster. 

I do not say that it is entirely practicable to rid ourselves of 
partisan prejudice, but we must do so if we would see our con¬ 
clusions verified by time. The petty passions of the hour must be 
discarded, when our deliberations are to affect not only the pres¬ 
ent, but unborn generations. We may all concede to our ex- 
tremest opponents the merit of upright intentions ; but we are 
equally to remember, that well intentioned ignorance has filled 
the world with suffering. This is a truth emblazoned, in melan¬ 
choly characters, upon every page of history. Hence the necessity, 
in a great juncture like the present, of obtaining full and correct 
information upon the issues which we have to settle; of contem¬ 
plating with such breadth of vision, the material facts of the 
situation, as shall enable us truly to apprehend their bearings 
and relations. For the views which I now advance I assume no 
other merit than that of a careful, earnest, and, so far as I am 
conscious, of a disinterested examination of the subjects which 
are now the center of the common interest. 

The close of the war, then, finds us surrounded with a set of 
questions of the highest importance. The true theory of our 
Government often announced, and often, alas! lost sight of, must 
be perseveringly reasserted and maintained. A solution must 
be found for the problem of our national debt and finances, so 
that the country may be relieved of its burdens, and again enjoy 
a currency of intrinsic value, as contemplated by the Constitu¬ 
tion. Our domestic and foreign trade must be settled upon the 
basis of sound economical principles, and restored to those har- 




5 


monizing and fructifying channels from which unhappy events 
have diverted them. The privileges and immunities of the 
American citizen must be so clearly defined that they may be 
secure from usurpation in war as well as in peace. The limits of 
martial law must be settled with such distinctness that it may 
not be permitted to supplant the civil, and that it may not be 
stretched by the hand of power to partisan purposes and individ¬ 
ual oppression. The Union must be restored upon the constitu¬ 
tional basis of absolute and perfect equality of the States. The 
restoration should be immediate and the reunion cordial. The 
dignity of the country, as well as its safety, must further be sup¬ 
ported by the unqualified re-assertion of the Monroe doctrine. 

It would be a fatal error to suppose that now that the war has 
been concluded under a Republican Administration the popular 
seal has been set upon the Federal theory of consolidation. Those 
who entertain this idea must remember that the popular support 
of the war was prompted by the determination to preserve the 
integrity of the Union. No sanction was thereby intended of 
any change in the Constitution, either in letter or by construction. 

I maintain, sir, and it has ever been maintained by the Demo¬ 
cratic party, that the State-rights doctrines, properly stated, pre¬ 
sent the true theory of the Government. The question arose in 
the contest between Jefferson and Adams in 1801, and the elec¬ 
tion of Mr. Jefferson was a popular vindication of these doctrines 
as against the Hamiltonian theory of centralization supported by 
Mr. Adams. 

The Federal idea, which it was attempted to realize by a lat- 
itudinarian construction of the Constitution, was that of a consol¬ 
idated system of government, in which the undeligated powers 
of the States were to be absorbed, and the spirit of monarchy to 
be thus infused into our democratic forms. The assumption by 
the central power of the disposition of those details which the 
Constitution left to the States was to operate, as far as the Statee 
were concerned, as a consolidated despotism. It was the favorite 
tenet of the Federal faith that force or interest were the only 
successful means of governing men. Force being excluded by 
the nature of the case, the resort was necessarily to the influences 
of corruption ; and Government patronage in its multifarious 
branches and details, was to crown the execution of the plan. 
As far as Hamilton’s influence extended, and it was very potent, 
this turn had been given to the policy of the first Administration 
under Washington. Hence the bitterness with which they con¬ 
tested every inch of debatable ground. Historically, and in the 
light of the simple facts, there could be no doubt of the correct¬ 
ness of the Democratic view. 

The States or colonies had been independent of each other be¬ 
fore the Revolution, each owing allegiance only to the British 
Crown. When by the success of the Revolution, that allegiance 
became severed, the sovereignty, which before resided in the 
monarch, reverted to each independent community or State. 



In acceding to tlie new Government, the States acted upon their 
own separate responsibilities as sovereignties, and not by a sim¬ 
ultaneous act of the people of all the States as individuals. 
When, then, we seek to ascertain th^ kind'of Government which 
they adopted, we have only to turn to the provisions of the char¬ 
ter by which they agreed to be bound. We there find that they 
surrendered the control, as separate communities, over certain 
subjects, the disposition of which they determined to be more 
wisely vested in a central Government. In so doing, the sover¬ 
eignty of the peoples of the several States, and their allegiance 
became a divided one. The sovereignty, within the sphere of 
the granted powers, was in the central Government, and allegi¬ 
ance due to it within that sphere. As to the powers not speci¬ 
fically granted in the charter, they remained with the States, in 
which they had always been, constituting the State sovereignty, 
which rightfully claims, within the sphere of the reserved or un¬ 
granted powers, the allegiance and rightful obedience of every 
citizen within their respective territories. 

This "was the true Democratic doctrine in the days of Jefferson, 
and it is the true Democratic doctrine now. Extreme men of the 
Federal school, from that day to this, have ignored State rights, 
while extreme men of the opposite view have repudiated the au¬ 
thority of the central Government in cases where it properly ex¬ 
ists. Jefferson assumed his position between these two extremes 
of consolidation and secession. In that “ golden mean” he planted 
the party of which he was the illustrious founder, and there it 
has ever since remained. His policy was conservative alike of 
the constitutional powers of the central government and of those 
of the States, and opposed to the extreme Federalist and extreme 
State-sovereignty men. 

The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798, which embody 
the doctrine of State-rights, were commented upon by President 
Johnson in his able speech in the Senate in 1861. He stated 
with fidelity their true history and meaning. 

The views of the extreme State-sovereignty men, as reduced 
to practice in the act of secession, have been suppressed by 
physical force, and the just authority of the Government has 
been successfully and rightfully re-established. But the doctrine 
of State rights is in nowise affected by the result. It remains 
the only true and stable foundation of our republican system. 
State rights comprehend that portion of the State sovereignty not 
delegated by the Constitution to the Federal Government, and 
the two expressions are of co-extensive and identical import. 
That the States are sovereign in this sense; that is as possessing 
all the undelegated powers of sovereignty; it is late in the day to 
question. The Union was thus the result of mutual concession ; 
and from the testimony of its founders could not have been 
formed in any other way. 

The country, although relieved by the war, is without a reli¬ 
able currency. Gold, as the constitutional standard of value, 



7 


lias been departed from, and a currency immensely inflated, 
based on the national debt, has taken its place. It has further 
to struggle with the great and galling evils induced by the con¬ 
traction of a war debt so vast that the mind sinks in the effort to 
grasp its magnitude. Instead of adhering to a currency of the 
constitutional standard, the precious metals or paper convertible 
into them at the will of the holder, resort was had to paper which 
represented no value in the possession of the Government, which 
was inconvertible, and represented only so much public indebt¬ 
edness. 

It could not have been through ignorance that Mr. Chase, the 
financial minister, inaugurated this expedient at the sacrifice of 
the constitutional currency by the introduction of the legal ten¬ 
der. It was not only a violation of the Constitution, but confis¬ 
cation of,private estates, an unsettling of all values, and a fatal 
stab at the foundation of financial integrity. Our own revolu¬ 
tionary experience must have been present to his mind. The dis¬ 
astrous experience of France under Laid, Necker, Turgot, and 
Colonne, was uttering through the voice of history its decisive 
condemnation of the plan. He has then in defiance of such ex¬ 
perience and constitutional obligation committed the country to 
a scheme calculated long to embarrass his successors, and from 
which the present generation will in vain look for relief. 

In January, 1861, the circulation of all the banks in the Uni¬ 
ted States was $202,005,000. The amount of specie in the banks 
was $87,674,000. The currency was gold or convertible paper, 
at the will of the holder. The expenditures of the Government 
were at the same time about $83,000,000 per annum, which was 
fully met by the revenue, and there was but about $75,000,000 
of public debt. At the present time the Government debt, on 
the 31st October, 1865, is stated at $2,740,854,750. Add to this 
$600,000,000, which it will take to equalize bounties, together 
with the millions that will be required to pay damages to the 
property of loyal men occasioned by the armies, with the addi¬ 
tional millions to pay pensions, and we have a debt equaled only 
by that of Great Britain, contracted in centuries of foreign wars. 
The estimated expenses for the present fiscal year, as stated in 
the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, are $857,921,717 47. 
To meet these and discharge the interest on the public debt, we 
have only the receipts, actual and estimated, the current fiscal 
year, from customs, of $147,009,583 03, the inconsiderable re¬ 
ceipts from the public lands amounting to $632,890 63, from di¬ 
rect tax $31,111 30, and those from internal revenue amounting 
to $271,618,885 65, and from miscellaneous sources to $48,393,- 
729 94. The balance, amounting to $389,377,207 77, is re¬ 
duced, by the application of $277,182,260 57 of borrowed mo¬ 
ney, to the sum, as stated by the Secretary of the Treasury, of 
$112,194,947 20, which is still to be provided for in the method 
adopted by Mr. Chase of Government loans or inconvertible 
promises to pay. 



8 


It -is the evil of paper currency, that while the debt of the 
country represented by bonds and bills, is but a substitute for 
capital, in the absence of any check arising from the necessity 
of redemption in specie, it is continually tending to augmenta¬ 
tion. This is because inflation first raises prices, and more in¬ 
flation is demanded at each step of the progress. With <a given 
amount of circulation, prices at once adjust themselves to jthat 
amount; but when this is once done, the increase of the circula¬ 
tion goes no further than the circulation before the inflation. 
Hence the same reason which begot the first inflation, begets a 
second. 

It is obvious that under the system which has thus been fas¬ 
tened on the country there must be a deficit, not only the pres- 
sent year, but for years to come. A regard to sound principles 
imperatively requires, that, unless we are content to run along 
the highroad to bankruptcy and ruin and practical repudiation, 
adequate provision should be made for discharging with cer¬ 
tainty and promptness, the annual interest upon every addition 
to the public indebtedness. It is equally necessary that a rigid 
system of retrenchment and economy should be adopted in every 
branch of the public service, that the Government expenditures 
should be reduced to the minimum consistent with the interests 
of the country. 

A sinking fund should also be provided for the gradual extin¬ 
guishment of the principal of the debt, that the people may have 
some assurance that, though the process may be slow and the end 
remote, the yoke of this terrible burden may not press upon the 
necks of themselves and descendants forever; and yet the agents 
of the government, the especial pets of Mr. Chase, appeal to the 
people for increased loans upon the distinct assertion that the na¬ 
tional debt is a “national blessing.” That public loans should be 
asked on such a plea as this is a marvel. The audacity of the pro- 
positon is without a parallel. In support of this reckless maxim, 
the over-zealous agent refers his countrymen to the example of 
England. Instead of being an example of a national debt being 
a national blessing she has been the victim of a national debt. 
'With vast advantage in geographical position, girt with oceans 
and channels, she has heretofore controlled the commerce of the 
world. With a sturdy and skillful population, with hills and 
mines of developed minerals, and a Government that has stood 
defiantly the slow evolution of a thousand years, yet her lands 
are monopolized by a population not exceeding thirty thousand 
in number. The great mass of the population of twenty-seven 
millions are but tenantry and operatives. Mr. Gladstone, in May, 
1864, declared in a speech in the British Parliament that less than 
one fiftieth part of the working men in England are in the enjoy¬ 
ment of the franchise. 

The Chairman of the Ways and Means, and now[of Appropria¬ 
tions, [Mr. Stevens,] has boldly stated that the present taxes 
must be doubled or the debt repudiated. 



9 


A wise statesmanship, while encouraging, by adjusting oppres¬ 
sive taxes and inconsiderate restrictions upon our variegated in¬ 
dustry, and developing our resources, agricultural as well as man¬ 
ufacturing, may yet lighten, in a very great degree, the burdens 
of the people; but to double the present tax will be more than the 
straw that breaks the camel’s back. As a representative of Pennsyl¬ 
vania—the greatest, of the States in the material from which wealth 
is created and whose industry is largely engaged in manufactures—• 
I confess to a just pride in her position. I am proud of her stur¬ 
dy, intelligent, and enterpising population, and earnestly seek the 
promotion of all her great interests. We cannot, however, shut 
our eyes to the new condition of things which has been forced 
upon us by recent events and by the general progress of the world. 
Slavery having been extinguished in the South, she will demand 
more streneously than ever the abolishment of commercial re¬ 
strictions by th’e North. The West, an empire within herself, with 
a voice which it will be impossible to deny, will join in the same 
demand. It is therefore our policy to appreciate our natural ad¬ 
vantages, and to moderate our demands to the realities which are 
before us. The recent experience of other countries appears to 
be decisive in favor of a liberal commerce. It was lately shown 
by Mr. Gladstone, the enlightened Chancellor of the English Ex¬ 
chequer, that a wonderful development of the commercial ener¬ 
gies of that country has taken place since the relaxation of the 
Government restrictions. The masses of England, under the lead 
of Peel and Cobden, demanded cheap bread. The masses of this 
country demand cheap fabrics as well as cheap bread. 

Similar financial and commercial prosperty have been present¬ 
ed in France by the policy, carefully modeled after the English 
system, which has been adopted since the accession of the present 
Emperor; her commercial development has outstripped the ex¬ 
pectations of even the most sanguine ; and while yielding a reve¬ 
nue greater than ever before, the people have been materially re¬ 
lieved of the burdens of taxation. Commerce, it must be remem¬ 
bered, has given life and prosperity to every nation to the exact 
extent in which each has enjoyed* it. The ships of all civilized 
nations now meet, more than ever, in friendly rivalry upon every 
sea. The share of trade, however, which will fall to each nation 
will be determined by the natural resources, the development, 
and enlightened and liberal policy of each. England has grown 
preeminently great by her commerce. The commerce of India, 
probably the oldest of all countries in civilzation, the most numer¬ 
ous in population, and the greatest in the value ot its products 
for ex'-'iange, has enriched, successively, Tyre and Sidon and 
Alexandria, Byzantium and Carthage, and in modern times has 
poured its rich streams into Portugal, Holland and Yenice, Lon¬ 
don and Paris and New York. 

Engand, we shall not soon forget, sowed the seeds ot our dis¬ 
content, with the view of annihilatng our republican example 
and our commercial importance. She pursued her object with 

2 


such zeal and energy that slavery, the apple of discord, has dis¬ 
appeared from, our political contests and left us a great and 
powerful nation. In the future our progress will be steady and 
advancing. New York is rapidly attracting to herself the im¬ 
portance of London, must soon become the great distributing com¬ 
mercial center of the world, and the British Government will yet 
be revolutionized by the force of our republican example. 

Now, that the rebellion has been suppressed, we are to look 
with careful solicitude that the genius of our Government is not 
changed in the operation. The growth of the war power, under 
the despotic plea of u necessityhad come to overshadow the 
liberty of the citizen to such an extent that we seemed rather the 
subjects of imperial sway than members of a democratic Republic, 
whose rights and privileges are defined and guarantied by a writ¬ 
ten charter in the most solemn form known among men. But 
what avail written charters or established rights w r lien they may 
be set aside by the stroke of a cabinet minister’s or a presidential 
pen? What is this but the exercise of the principle of imperial¬ 
ism ? For that principle, as laid down by Justinian in his Insti¬ 
tutes, is u Quod placuit principi habet legis vigor cm” wh.at pleases 
the prince has the force of law. If this kind of administration is 
sanctioned, our written charters will become obsolete. They will 
remain a dead letter in the volume of the fundamental law. They 
will have become out-grown and superseded by a new system of 
extra-constitutional practices. Our people have, therefore, to 
watch narrowly, that in conquering the South we have not con¬ 
quered our liberties. 

Tlx* constitutional provisions guarantying the liberties of the 
American citizen are those contained in the fourth, fifth,.and sixth 
articles of the amendments. They secure him in the possession 
of personal liberty and property, against unwarrantable search 
and seizure, and in the right to a trial by jury. These are the 
American’s birthright and the pillars which support our demo¬ 
cratic government. They are of such transcendant importance 
that their violation is not to be tolerated for a moment, under 
whatever circumstances of popular excitement, or upon whatever 
pretext. In the night and storm of civil faction and ferment they 
are to the citizen w r hat the constellations are to the mariner. How¬ 
ever the tempest may rage, and the clouds obscure the face of the 
heavens, he knows that, so long, as his guiding stars are visible,, 
he is sure of his reckoning and can steer safely for u the haven 
where he would be.” 

There are a few points, which, if we- are to remain a free peo¬ 
ple, must be understood by the humblest citizen. Tie should 
understand that the Constitution, and the laws made under it, 
are the only law of the land for all who have not voluntarily sub¬ 
jected themselves to another code. There is no other code ex¬ 
cept for the military and naval service, and, under certain cir¬ 
cumstances, martial law. 

Military law is the code established under the authority of the 







11 


Constitution for the government of the land and naval forces ; 
and martial law is that which is exercised by the commander of 
an army, in a state of war, over the territory which it occupies. 
It is the law of arbitrary discretion, of despotic power, and is, 
from the necessity of the case, the only law which can be exer¬ 
cised in conquered countries, in rebellious districts, in the camp, 
and in the held. Military law, administered upon its proper 
subjects, is a part of the law of the land. Where a party is 
properly subject to be tried by military or martial law, the tri¬ 
bunal and mode of procedure are those known to those species 
of law respectively. In all other cases, the Constitution declares 
that no person shall be held to answer for an infamous crime, un¬ 
less upon presentment by a grand jury, nor tried by a jury except 
in certain c*ses specified. This clause of the Constitution pre¬ 
vails at all times, and in all places, unless force or armed occu¬ 
pation set it aside, or unless the party to be tried has resigned 
his civil rights by becoming a soldier or a sailor. 

The state of martial law is incident to the locality in which 
armed forces are present in conflict, or on the march, or in prep¬ 
aration for conflict; and the effect is the suspension of civil law 
in that locality. The mere existence of a state of w T ar does not 
supersede the Constitution and civil law anywhere else. Wher¬ 
ever the civil courts are open, and justice regularly adminis¬ 
tered, the civil procedure is that alone which is applicable to any 
one charged with an infamous crime. The civil law cannot be 
superseded or suspended throughout the country—not even by 
the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, nor 
by Congress. 

Another of the great palladia of liberty, the habeas corpus writ, 
was indeed authorized by Congress to be suspended by the Pres¬ 
ident. But this did not change the common law in regard to 
illegal arrests. Whoever, holding whatever executive position, 
shall order the arrest of a citizen upon a general warrant—that is, 
a warrant not assigning the cause of arrest, and not upon proba¬ 
ble cause supported by oath or affirmation—is a tresspasser; and 
no official character, and no imagined necessity, or expediency, 
can shield him from responsibility to the party injured. 

The tendency to abuse, which ever attends the possession of 
power, was the very cause why the great personal guarantees of 
which I have spoken were placed in the Constitution. It is true 
—and I would that every citizen of the land was duly im¬ 
pressed with the fact—that the charter of our liberties is amply 
full and clear. But it is in vain that this is so, if we, for whose 
benefit it was intended, fail in the trying hour to insist on its ob¬ 
servance. The existence of these abuses is furnishing the new¬ 
est and strongest arguments to despotism. We seem to have 
forgotten the lessons of history—of that English history with 
which our fathers were so familiar. When they inserted those 
priceless provisions in the Constitution, they had aNivid memory 
of the glorious utterances of Magna Charta, sounding through 


12 


centuries a voice to which every British descendant listens with 
an enchanted ear. They had a vivid memory of those engines 
of oppression which brought the head of Charles I. to the block. 
I believe, sir, that at no time during the war has there been any 
occasion for a resort to instruments of that kind, and that the 
success of the war has not been in any measure due to their em¬ 
ployment. 

Whatever advantage, for a particular purpose, these methods 
may possess over the constitutional ones, they are against the 
spirit of our people and the nature of their institutions. It.was, 
therefore, that the authors of our system made patriotic sacrifices 
for the sake of the greater good of preserving American freedom 
and manhood. 

So great have been the changes in the working of our institu¬ 
tions under the late Administration, so strong the tendencies, to 
imperialism, that they have been commented upon by English 
statesmen, and regarded as conclusive proof that our Republic 
has already faded away as a thing of the past, and that we are 
henceforth to be controlled by an absolute Government. 

Row, sir, it will be the fault and folly of our people, if they 
permit the flagrant abuse of legitimate powers, which character¬ 
ized the last Administration, to settle into established practice 
and permanent change of Government. Yet are the facts upon 
which I have commented sufficient to excite the deep concern 
of every one who loves his country and desires the perpetuity of 
her institutions. 

The war between sections in this country having closed, let us 
hope forever, it is our part now to maintain our national tradi¬ 
tions, and seek the unmolested fulfillment of our mission. There 
is greater unanimity, perhaps, upon no one subject among our peo¬ 
ple, than upon that which claimed this continent for republicanism, 
free from European interposition. It needs no prophet to predict 
at no distant day voluntary aid to the Liberal cause from multi¬ 
tudes of disbanded soldiers, both Federal and confederate. This 
must bring the q uestion of Maximilian’s empire to a speedy solu¬ 
tion, either by the abandonment by Napoleon of his support, and 
the retirement of the Austrian prince, or to a declaration of war 
by France to. maintain his position. 

Mr. Jefferson was the father of our policy of expansion. Ever 
since the publication of his views in 1808, and afterwards in his 
letter to Mr. Monroe, it has been the end of Englishmen to baffle 
the object. 

It is an undeniable fact that during the administration of Mr. 
Lincoln, in our diplomatic intercourse with foreign Powers, the 
American eagle has been made to bow his head and droop his 
plumes in humiliation and shame. 

When the House of Representatives assumed the indepen¬ 
dence to re-assert the Monroe doctrine, was not the full expression 
of congressional opinion upon the subject stifled in the Senate, 
and an apology forthwith sent to Louis Napoleon ? Later still, 



13 


when Mr. Lincoln was re-nominated at Baltimore, was not the 
nomination accepted by him, with the exclusion of the resolution 
affirming the Monroe doctrine ? What is all this but a renuncia¬ 
tion ot the favorite policy of expansion? 

But what is there in our history which makes the assertion of 
that principle less necessary now than at a former day ? The 
Monroe doctrine declared that this continent must be secure for 
the tree development of republican institutions without European 
interposition. This doctrine, so eminently reasonable and just, 
had been affirmed by our most prominent statesmen, without dis¬ 
tinction of party, prior to 1861. Nor was there any imperative 
necessity for renouncing, or even waiving it; for the elements 
have all the time been in existence for checkmating the preten¬ 
sions ot England and France. These were to be found in the 
friendship of Russia, and in the South American republics. Rus¬ 
sia has long been the terror of western Europe; and a league of 
the republics of the western continent would have rendered 
French tenure of Mexico a thing of the past. 

But the administration of Mr. Lincoln conceded the doctrine ; 
and the incipient step toward crippling, and if events should favor, 
of annihilating, American democracy by the establishment of ab¬ 
solutism in Mexico, was permitted to become a Gallic success. 

While such are the facts in regard to the Monroe doctrine, as 
presented by recent events, I am gratified to see that the Presi¬ 
dent, true to his early teachings, has shown a determination to 
maintain the national dignity and our ancient policy. 

It was not long since urged, with his peculiar force and elo¬ 
quence, by M. Thiers, in the French Chambers, that it was un¬ 
wise in France to favor the erection of a great independent 
Power on her own borders. He had allusion to the unification 
of Italy, but the remark has an application of strong significance- 
for this country in reference to Mexico and Canada, which the 
Powers interested may do well to heed. The existence of a 
monarchy in Mexico on the south and of a monarchy in Canada 
on the north, thus girdling and hampering our republican energies, 
is a restraint and a danger which cannot much longer be tolerated. 

I adhere, Mr. Speaker, to the declaration which I have made 
here before, that the late terrible war could have been avoided. 
But a President had been elected upon a revolutionary platform; 
and the radical element in the North, stimulated by an unchris¬ 
tian tirade or appeal from the pulpit, united with an unbridled 
and arrogant element from the South, did the work of desolation 
and death ; and over the sad struggle the tears ot humanity must 
continually flow. Perhaps it is charity to say that the bloody 
drama, in its progress and results, finds corresponding analogy 
in the storms of the physical world, which with divine mystery, 
purify while scattering destruction and death. 

The meddling of one-idea politicians with State institutions and 
property brought on the war ; and now that it is co ncludedt he 
continue their agitations in the same mischievous spirit. In obe- 




14 


dience to the teachings of the u higher law” doctrines, they post¬ 
pone all considerations to the realization of a legalized equality 
of races. Time was when the highest law which the good citizen 
could recognize involved obedience to the paramount law of his 
country. But with the class of politicians under notice that no¬ 
tion has long been discarded as an antiquated error. 

It matters not that their principles were repudiated by all 
statesmen of both parties in the country. It matters not that 
this Government was made by and for the white race ; that the 
States reserved the right of making their local laws; and that 
the Union could not otherwise have been formed. It matters 
not that a million of lives have been sacrificed in the effort to re¬ 
duce their pernicious theories to practice. Still they falter not in 
the contest; still they hug to their bosoms the phantom of negro 
equality ; still they claim for one section the right to control the 
local affairs of others. They hold that the white and black race 
are equal. This they maintain involves and demands social equal¬ 
ity ; that negroes should be received on an equality in white 
families, should be admitted to the same tables at hotels, should 
be permitted to occupy the same seats in railroad cars and the 
same pews in churches; that they should be allowed to hold offi¬ 
ces ; to sit on juries, to vote, to be eligible to seats in the State and 
national Legislatures, and to be judges, or to make and expound 
laws for the government of white men. Their children are to at¬ 
tend the same schools with white children, and to sit side by side 
with them. Following close upon this will, of course, be marriages 
between the races, when, according to these philanthropic theo¬ 
rists, the prejudices of caste w T ill at length have been overcome, 
and the negro, with the privilege of free miscegination accorded 
him, will be in the enjoyment of his true status. 

To future generations it will be a marvel in the history of 
our times, that a party whose tenets were such wild ravings and 
frightful dreams as these should be permitted, in their support, 
to urge the country into the hugest and most destructive of civil 
wars, and should, when war was inaugurated, be permitted to 
shape its policy in furtherance of their peculiar ends. For the 
full realization of their plans, they are ready to sacrifice 
not only our priceless system of government, but even our social 
superiority itself. 

We have to remember, on the other hand, that negro equality 
does not exist in nature. The African is without a history. lie 
has never shown himself capable of self-government by the crea¬ 
tion of a single independent State possessing the attributes which 
challenge the respect of others. The past is silent of any negro 
people who possessed military and civil organization, who culti¬ 
vated the arts at home, or conducted a regular commerce with 
their neighbors. No African general has marched south of the 
desert, from the waters of the Nile to the Niger and Senegal, 
to unite by conquest the scattered territories of barbarous 
tribes into one great and homogeneous kingdom. No Moses, 





15 


^olon, Lycurgus, or Alfred, has left them a code of wise and salu¬ 
tary laws. They have had no builder of cities ; they have no rep¬ 
resentatives in the arts, in science, or in literature they 
have been without even a monument, an alphabet, or a hiero¬ 
glyphic. 

Civilization among the whites has indeed, been a thing of pro¬ 
gress ; but that progress has been steady and sure. When Ju¬ 
lius Caesar landed in Britain he found the Britons savages, paint¬ 
ed warriors. Four hundred years after, ITengist and Horsa made 
a lodgement upon the island, and their Saxon followers laid the 
Inundation of English civilization. And let it be remembered 
that this was by no means the commencement of civilization. 
Before this, Cicero, in the midst of an intelligence transmitted 
from northern Africa to Greece, and from Greece to Rome, had 
electrified the Roman Senate with his eloquence and Cato had dig¬ 
nified it with his justice. Long before this Plato had taught his 
divine philosophy, and Homer had published his immortal song, 
in that immortal language, too, in which St. Paul gave his reli¬ 
gion to the world. The African was yet not so far away in his 
Libyan home but he might have heard the clinking of the ham¬ 
mers upon the walls of Alexandria, as they rose in architectural 
beauty and commercial grandeur at the mouth of the Nile, or of 
Thebes, with her hundred gates, higher up. He might have heard 
of the pyramids, those vast structures which have excited the 
wonder of the centuries which have rolled over them since their 
erection by the Ptolemies. But the negro is to this day, in Af- 
ca, a savage and a cannibal. 

It is impossible that two distinct races should exist harmoni¬ 
ously in the same country, on the same footing of equality by 
the law. The result must be a disgusting and deteriorating 
admixture of races, such as is presented in the Spanish States 
of America by the crossing of the Castilian with the Aztec 
and the negro. The prejudice of color is one of those facts 
implanted by Providence for wise purposes. Among others it 
is doubtless for the purpose of preserving a race homogeneous, 
which is the source of its true strength and permanent improve¬ 
ment. Physiologists instruct us that a race may be improved by 
the union of valuable qualities among the same race or others of 
similar characteristics but not by the indiscriminate amalgamation 
of superior with greatly inferior races. It is the homogeneous ra¬ 
ces which have controlled the world. The Jew, though without a 
country and everywhere the object of prejudice, yet maintains 
his physical and mental excellence even to the present day; 
and it is because he intermarries chiefly with his own race. The 
Anglo-Saxon, the dominant and most advanced in civilization 
upon the globe, owes its superiority to its homogeneity or al¬ 
liance with others of kindred excellence. 

We have, then, to insist upon it that this Government was 
made for the white race. It is our mission to maintain it. Ne¬ 
gro suffrage and equality are incompatible with that mission. 






16 


We must make our own laws and shape our own destiny. Ne- 
gro suffrage will, in its tendency, force down the Anglo-Saxon 
to the negro level, and result inevitably in amalgamation and 
deterioration of our race. The proud spirit of. our people will 
revolt at such certain degradation, while American women, the 
models of beauty and superiority, will indignantly execrate the 
men who advise and dictate the policy. 

The pictures of negro suffering in the South, as a consequence 
of the disorganization of society, are calculated to touch the 
hearts of all not utterly callous to human affliction. These can¬ 
not be fairly charged upon the former masters of the blacks, 
because the latter are mostly as destitute, save in the naked.pro¬ 
prietorship of the soil, as their former slaves. The condition 
of the southern negro is indeed such as strongly to . appeal to 
our sympathies. What, with deep concern, we may inquire, is 
to become of him ? It is certain that no scheme of philanthropy 
can be considered successful or even justifiable, that, under pre¬ 
tence of bettering the condition of a race, removes the same 
from a competence to a state of destitution and death. 

It requires no great prescience to predict what, as a result of 
the destruction of the labor system of the South, must, be the 
fate of the negro. This is already foreshadowed in certain facts 
gathered from the statistics of northern cities. It thus appears 
that, with every advantage of procuring a livelihood possessed 
by the white inhabitants of New York and Boston, and with 
laws which, in the sense of his peculiar friends, eminently favor 
him, his numbers have not increased in those localities, but show 
a remarkable diminution. It is also a fact equally well estab¬ 
lished, that the mortality among this people in the South during 
the war has been beyond example, even in those districts from 
which slavery has been expelled by the advance of our armies. 
Thus it is demonstrated that when left to their own control the 
colored population lack the qualities requisite to a provision for 
their own subsistence and the raising of families. The history 
of San Domingo and Jamaica after their emancipation, teaches 
a fruitful yet melancholy lesson of this truth. Thus the doom 
of the negro is written with that of the American Indian, in 
rapid and sure extinction ; and when the future historian shall 
inquire into the cause of his decay, and shall find it in the mis¬ 
guided efforts of his friends, he will ask the significant question, 
whether it would not have been truer benevolence to permit him 
to continue to live under a gradual emancipation than not to live 
at all. 

The southern people, as a result of the war, have lost their 
property in slaves. Their rights as political communities are, 
however, in other respects unimpaired- They are entitled to con- 
continue State governments—have the exclusive right to deter¬ 
mine what classes of their population shall be entitled to vote, 
and their Representatives have the same rights as others to seats 
upon this floor. Their admission as such cannot rightfuly be 
denied them. 



27 


Mr. Lincoln, in April, 1861 , and afterward in February, 1868 , 
speaking through Mr. Seward, the present as well as the then 
Secretary of State, to the government of France and to the world 
declared: 

“That there is not even a pretext for the complaint that the disaffected States 
are to be conquered by the United States, if the revolution fail, for the rights of 
the States and the condition of every human being in them will remain subject to 
exactly the same laws and forms of administration, whether the revolution shall 
succeed or fail. In the one case the States would be federally connected with the 
new confederacy, in the other they would a8 now be members of the United States, 
but their constitutions and laws, customs, habits, and institutions in either will re¬ 
main the same.” * * * * “That the Congress of the United States furnishes 

a constitutional forum for debates between the alienated parties. Senators and Re¬ 
presentatives from the loyal portion of the people are there already, fully empow¬ 
ered to conter, and seats also are vacant and inviting Senators and Representatives 
of the discontented party who may be constitutionally sent there from the States 
involved in the insurrection.” 

President Johnson in his message maintains without reserve 
that— 

“ The amendment to the Constitution being adopted, it would remain for the 
States whose powers have been so long in abeyance to resume their places in 
the two branches of the national Legislature, and thereby complete the work of 
restoration.” 

The Democracy stand by the President in his effort to “ com¬ 
plete the work of restoration,” and congratulate the country 
that there is a firm, strong hand upon the helm, and a clear eye 
which looks out upon the darkness, and which no order of any 
caucus can turn from the polar star that guides his course. 

We have subdued the rebel armies, which were the first ob¬ 
stacle to the restoration of the Union. But the work is not done. 
It is natural that disaffection should exist to some extent in the 
southern mind to the Government of the victors. Unless by 
timely clemency and the liberal pardon of offenders with a gen¬ 
eral amnesty at an early day this feeling can be eradicated, the 
Union will be but nominal, and can only be maintained by 
standing armies and garrisoned towns. That apparatus, the pri¬ 
vation of personal liberty and the rights of full citizenship, 
which are so offensive to freemen, and which have distinguished 
Russia, Austria, and Venice, will have to be maintained, and if 
maintained for any great length of time, will pass by easy transi¬ 
tion into imperialism and over the whole land. 

Mr. Speaker, I have but a word to add concerning the relation 
of the General Government to the States, and of the States to 
one another. I have listened with respect and attention to the 
principles of international law as they have been discussed with 
rare ability by the distinguished gentlemen on the other side of 
the House, but I think they have failed to prove out of Grotius 
and Vattel and Puffendorf that America has no laws, no consti¬ 
tution, and no Union among her great sisterhood of States. We 
must not forget that we are considering a question purely of in¬ 
ternal administration, which must be settled solely by the muni¬ 
cipal laws of our own country, and not by the law of nations. 


18 


The question before us is, what are the rights and obligations of j 
our own citizens toward their own Government in time of peace, 
and not what are the relative duties of two foreign countries in 
time of open and flagrant war. The law of nations takes no 
cognizance of what is done in time of peace by a single Gov¬ 
ernment with its own people. 

It is true that where a people divide, and the parties become 
hostile to one another and take up arms and thus make a civil 
war, the common humanity of the world will insist that the con¬ 
test between them, as long as it continues to be a military con¬ 
test, shall be carried on according to the rules and principles i 
which apply to separate belligerent nations. 

I maintain that when the rebellion was suppressed the law re- i 
sumed its authority. The law was suspended during the rebel¬ 
lion, because it could not be executed; but it was not repealed, 
destroyed, or abolished. If the sovereign, whose power has been 
opposed by an insurgent force, is an absolute despot, he may 
wreak his vengeance at will, as Russia did upon Poland, and 
Austria upon Hungary. If he is a limited monarch, he must 
govern after a rebellion as he did before, according to the laws 
of the realm. If the armed opposition was made against a con¬ 
stitutional republic, it is absurd to say that the officers or legis¬ 
lators of the Government have acquired from the rebellion a 
power which the Constitution did not give them. It is equally j 
absurd to say that the laws were abolished by the very war which i 
was waged for their preservation. We must remember that this i 
Government has not been revolutionized by the southern rebel¬ 
lion, and I deny that it has added one particle to the power of 
any man who holds office under the United States. 

I believe most devoutly in the Constitution framed by the 
fathers of the Republic, and in that Union which was the result 
of the Constitution. I have no faith in any other mode of bring¬ 
ing the States together. We must still look to that Constitution 
and the laws for a justification of all we do, and every citizen 
may still plead that he owes no obedience to mere arbitrary I 
power, because there is no arbitrary power in existence. 

I happen to represent a region of country which was once in 
rebellion against the United States. The insurrection was put ; 
down by superior military force. In those days, under the lead ; 
of Washington and Hamilton, -the monstrous doctrine that as a | 
conquered people they and their children had no rights under | 
the Constitution, was never thought of. They submitted to the I 
law, and the law protected them. 

The people of the South have submitted to the authority and ! 
Government of the United States. What is that Government? 
The Constitution and laws. But our radical friends say their 
submission was made to the will of the dominant party in this )■ 
House and the Senate. 

Did secession destroy the Union? Certainly not, for secession 
was a nullity. Did the war, which we carried on to enforce the ( 





19 


laws, destroy the obligation of the laws? A secessionist might 
say so, but in the eyes of a Union man there can be nothing 
more absurd or disloyal. Where, then, is the authority to gov¬ 
ern without law ? It will not be pretended that there is a divine 
right. We must come back, then, to the fundamental law, which 
is the true source of all power, and the true standard of duty for 
all the people who are under our jurisdiction. 

The committee on reconstruction has proposed an amendment 
to the Constitution, excluding from the basis of representation 
all. persons denied the franchise on account of race or color. 
This proposition strikes at the Constitution in its most vital par¬ 
ticular, and has many advocates without much consideration. 
The whole question of representation was settled by our fathers 
with great difficulty, after a most careful and matured delibera¬ 
tion. It is unwise to disturb it. The policy of amendment once 
introduced will not stop with curtailing the representation of the 
southern States. Under the Constitution ail legislative powers 
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives, the legislative 
powers of the Senate being equal to that of the House. In ad¬ 
dition to this, the Senate is a part of the treaty-making and ap¬ 
pointing power. If it is intended that representation shall be 
based upon numbers, then we must remodel that part of the 
Constitution which gives to New England and several of the 
new. States a voice so largely disproportionate to their population. 
The, six New England States with a population less than New 
York, and but little greater than Pennsylvania, have twelve 
Senators, while each of the latter have but two. With this dis¬ 
proportionate power New England has shaped the policy of the 
Government to her own advantage, in the navigation laws, in 
the fisheries, and in the protective policy. The great agricul¬ 
tural interests of the country, and especially of those States situ¬ 
ated in the valley of the Mississippi and around the Gulf of 
Mexico, have been tolled by her for more than fifty years. The 
instincts of empire, stimulated by the example of amendment 
will arouse this interest to circumscribe a power so full of exac¬ 
tion and prohibition. Such reform would readily commend it¬ 
self to the judgment as well as the passions of men, and soon 
become an element of party warfare. Be careful, then, how you 
lay the hand of innovation on this part of the Constitution. 

The idea of a certain class of politicians, of confiscating the 
lands of the South and parceling them out among negroes and 
adventurers, has for its object the extermination of the present 
generation of southern whites, and shows the barbarous ani¬ 
mus of that most impracticable party. They would adopt that 
same policy of irritation which was attempted by Elizabeth and 
James in Ireland, and which has been fruitful only of heart¬ 
burning and discontent to the present hour. 

It is not the policy of the Government to keep it pressed upon 
the minds of the South that they are subject to a galling yoke. 
Neither is it right. The people of the South, when they have 
once given in their adhesion to the Government, are as much 





20 


freemen, as much entitled to protection in the rights of self-gov¬ 
ernment, as any portion of the North. There is a broad distinc¬ 
tion between power and right, and while the Government posses¬ 
ses the power, she should exercise it in subordination to those 
great principles of democracy and republicanism which consti¬ 
tute the basis of our system. It is a plain violation of these to 
force upon the South any modification of her social condition, 
any political status not sanctioned by her people through their 
law-making assemblies. 

Such a policy may drive a people to despair, may prepare the 
fuel for alighting anew the flames of insurrection ; but will never 
generate love for the Government which thus seeks to oppress 
them. True statesmanship will not attempt to succeed by such 
means. A strict regard for justice, abatement of extreme pre¬ 
tensions; a steady effort to show the South that the war was not 
waged out of hatred to her people, but only for the preservation 
of the national territory unfractured; a careful regard for her in¬ 
terests in common with those of the other States, these, I believe, 
are the only means which will ever succeed in obliterating the 
silent but corroding memories of errors, w T rongs, an d^ sufferings; 
of effacing the deep scars of civil bloodshed and warming the es¬ 
tranged hearts of our countrymen towards a common Government 
once more. The expressed desire of the South, if conquered, to 
belong to a strong Government, and her readiness to resent the 
imagined injury inflicted upon her by the neutrality of the Eu¬ 
ropean Powers, should be wisely taken advantage of to revive 
and rivet the Union feeling. 

We ask indemnity from England for the ravages of anglo-rebel 
cruisers. We protest against the establishment of a monarchy 
on the ruins of the Mexican republic, and we are anxious to pre¬ 
serve the national faith and lessen the evils of a redundant cur¬ 
rency. A cordial reunion of the States will do more to settle 
our foreign complications than “an army with banners.” It 
would stimulate a revival of our industrial pursuits and divert 
into new channels a portion of our paper issues. It would en¬ 
courage a speedy and active cultivation of the lands of the South, 
add largely to the public revenue, and increase the basis of secu¬ 
rity for the payment of the public debt. Who can hesitate to 
co-operate for such a purpose—to restore the Union, to reunite a 
people, to re-establish an empire of free Commonwealths, and 
make it irresistible and imperishable ? And yet the caucus of 
the dominant party originated the joint resolution and the com¬ 
mittee of fifteen, to wdiich is committed without debate whatever 
relates immediately or remotely to the restoration of the Union. 
A policy thus struck out in advance of the message has fore¬ 
stalled the action of Congress and virtually notified the Presi¬ 
dent that the “information of the state of the Union” which the 
Constitution requires him to give is immaterial and disregarded. 
It presumed the States in which insurrection lately prevailed to 
be no States, and, as a consequence, that all his acts looking to 
their restoration were simple usurpations. 





21 


h\ the rise and progress of this war we have seen a frightful 
display of the wild and reckless passions of our nature, manifest¬ 
ing itself in proscription, confiscation, and an utter disregard of 
the rights of person and property, of freedom of speech and pub¬ 
lication, and of trial by jury. It we look back to the instructive 
records of that Commonwealth which was the greatest which 
preceded our own, we find that when once a faction which dom¬ 
inated resorted to proscription and the gratification of malignant 
passion this was the natural excuse for the opposite faction, on 
succeeding to power, of retaliating the same abuses. Sylla was 
the leader in this sanguinary policy. Then it was freely resorted 
to by Marius and by Cinna. Kven Cicero, with ail his high- 
toped principles, descended to this abuse in the punishment, 
without law, of the Catilinian conspirators. A reaction was the 
natural consequence. The infliction of punishment contrary to 
law excited a sympathy with the vicious, and Cicero himself was 
soon a sufferer by the same code. The event proved the wisdom 
of Julius Csesar, who in the Senate counseled moderation as at 
all times the true policy. It does not detract from the value of 
Ceesar’s counsel that he was himself assassinated in turn—for cor* 
ruption had become too general and deep-seated to admit of any 
but a forcible remedy—and that through such a horrible high¬ 
way of blood the republic became merged in the empire. May 
we not ask, do these extra-constitutional and unlawful acts upon 
the part of our rulers mark the steps of a like progress on our 
part toward the repose of absolutism ? 

Would it not be far better in this condition of things to repeal 
this sweeping and revolutionary confiscation law? For, what is 
the end and object of that act ? If it is a punishment, then I am 
fortified by the opinion of Montesquieu, that all such punishments 
are unwise. The following is the language which he uses in his 
I u Spirit of Laws : ” 

“As soon as a republic h*,s compassed the •destruction of those who wanted tosub- 
vert it, there should be an end of examples, punishments and even of rewards. 

“Great punishments, and consequently great changes, cannot take place without 
investing some citizens with Loo great a power. It is therefore more advisable 
; in this case to exceed in lenity than in severity ; to banish but'few rather than many; 

and to leave them their estates rather than to make a great number of confiscations, 
j Under pretense of revenging the republic’s cause, the avengers would establish ty¬ 
ranny. The business is not to destroy the rebel, but the rebellion. They ought to 
return as quick as possible into the usual.trac'k of government, ia which everyone 
! is protected by the laws, and no one oppressed.” 

We must remember that in the struggle through which we have 
passed a million of our people have been slain, and among others 
the Washingtons, Marshalls, and Monroes ; and that Virginia has 
been desolated and dismembered. It was thissame Virginia that, 
in the struggle ot 1776, marched to the relief of Massachusetts. 
In that eventful conflict she was to Massachusetts as the shield of 
Achilles to the Greeks. She furnished the author of the Decla¬ 
ration and the leader of the continental army which carried the 
Revolution to success, and afterwards the statesmen who laid the 
foundation of the Government. 

The Republican party has accomplished its mission, which was 



22 


the abolition of slavery. For the rest there is no longer any bond 
of union among its members. The numerous propositions to 
amend the Constitution are but signals of distress, while the 
despairing cry is heard from every portal. The Democracy have 
no changes to make. Their principles are identical with the pros¬ 
perity of the country, and are as perpetual as the Government 
itself. They have only to adhere to those principles, in the 
breadth and vigor with which they were thus announced in Mr. 
Jefferson’s inaugural: 

“ Equal and exaot justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or 
political; peace, commerce, and hoDest friendship with all nations, entangling alli¬ 
ances with none ; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the 
most competent administrators of our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks 
against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in 
its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and safety 
abroad ; a jealous care of the rights of election by the people, a mild and safe cor¬ 
rective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution, when peaceable 
remedies are unprovided ; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, 
the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital 
principle and immediate parent to despotism ; a well-disciplined militia, our best 
reliance in peace, and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them ; 
the supremacy of the ci-vil over the military authority ; economy in the public ex¬ 
pense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts, and 
sacred preservation of the public faith ; encouragement of agriculture, and of com¬ 
merce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses 
at tbe bar of. the public reason; freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and 
freedom of person, under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries 
impartially selected.” 

These, Mr. Speaker, are tbe immutable principles of eternal 
justice, and must be recognized as the governing law of our 
race. The disorganization of society induced by the late strug¬ 
gle, and the demoralizing spirit of plunder which is abroad in 
the land, may for a time retard their adoption, but their full and 
general recognition cannot long be delayed. In the language of 
Henry Clay, “ truth is inevitable and public justice certain.” 

In restoring to order the scattered parts of a Government and 
people returning to peace after a terrible civil war, tbe principles 
of justice must be preserved. With a just sense of right, and 
with comprehensive view, we must not only forget the past, but 
we must, by an equal distribution of the benefits as well as the 
burdens of Government, make it the interest of all sections to 
uphold and defend it. Such interest is the great regulating prin¬ 
ciple, the true bond of Union ; the cohesive power that holds 
Governments together, and make’s a nation truly great and pros¬ 
perous. For a time the southern States may be denied the priv¬ 
ileges of a reunion, and of a representation on this floor; the 
writ of habeas corpus may he suspended ; arbitrary arrests may 
be renewed ; military commissions continued ; and- the cry of an 
unbridled fanaticism heard over the voice of struggling justice ; 
but so certainly as the waters find their level, or the magnet 
points to the pole, will that spirit of liberty and independence, 
which the Almighty blew into our nostrils with the breath of 
life, conduct our principles to final triumph. 






























• 

• 



























































































- 




























































II 


S P E E C PI 




u 


DAWSON, 


‘OF PENNSYLVANIA, 


ON THE 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 16, 1887. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY LEMUEL TO WERS. 

1 867 . 































. 










i 




















































































i 



















































. . 

































































































SPEECH 


HON. JOHN L. DAWSON, 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

ON THE 

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE UNION. 


DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 18, 1867. 


* 

The House having under consideration House Bill No. 543, to provide for restoring 
to the States lately in insurrection, their full political rights—Mr. DAW-^ON said : 

Mr. Speaker : I have watched the proceedings of this body 
with deep interest. No one has been a more attentive listener 
or more carefully reflected upon the subjects which have engaged 
its attention. Feeling as I have done from the first the magni¬ 
tude and imminence of the danger which rested and continues 
to rest upon the future of the country, and oppressed as I still 
am with anxiety for her fate, it is but an obvious suggestion of 
duty to contribute whatever of ability and influence 1 may po* 
sess toward a solution of the difficulties which yet, with muc 
obstinacy, obstruct a return of this great land to the quiet, th 
harmony, and progressive prosperity which only a decade ago 
rendered her the pride and envy of the civilized world. 

The war from which we have emerged was waged for the res¬ 
toration of the Union. It has been successful in the suppression 
of the rebellion, but the result has not been the restoration of 
the Union. There is conquest but there is no Union. I desire, 
sir, to inquire in all sincerity why this lamentable duality ot 
conditions still obtains in reference to a great people, which na¬ 
ture and the wisdom of revered legislators intended to be one. 
My wish and purpose are to do this in a spirit wholly apart from 
and above that of the partisan. It must be the impulse of every 
heart not unworthy a citizen of America to let party and plat¬ 
form sink together in the dust in the presence of great questions 
affecting vitally the safety of his country. I shall exercise the 
privilege, which I have always done upon this floor, of criticising 
with freedom and decision where I feel compelled to dissent, and 




4 


with equal boldness shall indicate what I think is to be done, in 
the trying exigency of our political and social relations to bring 
back that internal harmony without which durable peace and 
union are but fond aspirations or deceitful illusions. 

The course of duty, is not, I apprehend, so difficult to discover 
if we do not willfully shut our eyes to the principles and facts 
which heretofore ail have acknowledged as fundamental and 
governing; and if we do not elevate and magnify into primary 
importance those which in their nature are secondary and of 
comparative insignificance. We have emerged from a great 
civil war; the greatest, indeed, of any age, and we have in con¬ 
sequence a somewhat anomalous state of facts to deal with. 

The Federal Union, which was the common Government of all 
the States and their respective populations, was disturbed by an 
attempt at disruption by a portion of the parties to it. The pro¬ 
ject of secession failed ; but the relations which the seceding 
States since the war sustain to those adhering to the Union 
have been the subject of very conflicting theories. On the one 
hand, it is •maintained that by the act of rebellion the States 
which engaged in it have forfeited all their rights, State and in¬ 
dividual ; they are without any valid government save such as 
the legislative branch of the Government may choose to extend 
to them, and they exist only by the mercy of the conquerors. 
This is the theory of the Republican party, and has given Hse to 
the measures upon this subject of the last and present Congress. 
On the other hand, it is claimed that the attempt at secession 
having been suppressed by the physical power of the Govern¬ 
ment, the {States, whose authority was usurped by the parties to 
the movement, have never at any time been out of the Union ; 
and that having once expressed their acquiescence in the result 
ot the contest and renewed their allegiance to the Union they 
are at the same time restored to all the rights and duties of the 
adhering States. This is the doctrine which is held by the Ex¬ 
ecutive and has given shape to the presidential policy. 

Recognizing, as I do, in the presidential theory the true solution 
of our difficulties, I will state briefly the reasons which move 
me to this conclusion. It is a fact that the close of the Revolu¬ 
tion found the people of these States in the condition of distinct 
sovereignties. The Articles of Confederation were but a league 
of these. The Constitution of 1789 differed from the old in 
this: that it invested the common Government with certain 
attiibute8 of sovereignty which had before belonged exclusively 
to the States in their separate capacities. As to these powers 
distinctly specified in the common charter, allegiance was due to 
the Federal Government. As to all other powers not specified, 
sovereignty was still reserved to the States. The Federal Gov¬ 
ernment was as supreme as to the granted powers as the States 
were-as to the reserved, both governments proceeding directly 
from the people—the true source of power in a democratic gov- 






5 


ernment. The General Government was Federal, (as its -name 
implies,) inasmuch as it was formed by the accession of the 
several populations as separate and independent States: but it was 
not Federal in the sense of a league, as the Government of the 
old Confederation had been. That was formed by the States in 
their corporate capacities, and. affected the States only as corpo¬ 
rations. The new Government was created by the act of the 
people as individuals, ratifying by their representatives in con¬ 
ventions ; and its powers were to be exercised directly upon in¬ 
dividuals. The new government was “national” within the range 
of its powers, since it was the union of the sovereign powers of 
the States for the specified objects. State sovereignty no longer 
existed ; but State rights—the exercise of the portion of sover¬ 
eignty reserved—remained in full force. The difference between 
the two constitutions was, that by the one the States retained 
their full sovereignty ; by the other they did not. 

In cases of Fedeial or State encroachment, the constituted 
arbiter was the Supreme Court; and whenever popular passion 
should become too strong to wait for its decrees or regard them 
when promulgated, the contest would necessarily become one of 
physical force. If in the opinion of the populations of the States, 
the right of local self-government were not duly protected, or 
■were infringed upon by the common Government of limited 
powers, duty to the local governments might counsel resistance, 
and if the Federal authority were equally tenacious, it is obvious 
that an issue would be raised which could only be decided by an 
appeal to arms. Now, this is precisely what has happened in 
our recent history. The southern populations, apprehending 
that by the election of Mr. Lincoln, upon a platform which they 
regarded as aggressive to their local rights, and which purposed 
the exclusion of southern communities from the equal benefits 
contemplated by the common Government, felt called upon to 
assume their own protection by a new confederacy. This neces¬ 
sarily brought on with the common Government, already estab¬ 
lished, which yet disclaimed any intention of exceeding its 
defined powers, and which felt impelled to every effort for selt- 
preservation, since it was a Government deliberately adopted by 
all the people, whose cpnsent was not to be withdrawn upon the 
mere apprehension of injury—this brought on, I say, with the 
common Government, an issue of force. How this has been de¬ 
cided : with what a prodigious exhibition ot energy by the 
respective parties ; with what prodigal waste of blood and of life, 
what darkened homes, what an accumulation of the burdens of 
the people, what disruption of kindred ties, and what, engen¬ 
dered bitterness; we are all, alas! but too painfully familiar. 
I have more than once, from my place here, as well as elsewhere, 
declared my conviction that the South grievously erred in its 
choice of a remedy for the evils of which it complained. I 
of course ackowledge the right of revolution for adequate cause, 


6 


bnfc that cause I was unable to find in the facts immediately an¬ 
tecedent to the rebellion. The doctrines and policy of the Ke~ 
publican party I did think aggressive upon southern rights, but I 
regarded them as 1)rutum fulmen , while the South held an 
all-sufficient curb in a constitutional majority in both Houses of 
Congress and in the shield of the Constitution always resting 
over them. 

1 do not. overlook the fact that, contemporaneously with the- 
origin of the Government, there were great differences of opin¬ 
ion atnong wise and good statesmen as to the- relative extent, and 
in certain contingencies relative supremacy, of the Srate and 
Federal Governments. These differences obtained extensively 
without reference to section. The Virginia and Kentucky reso¬ 
lutions of 1798 gave prominence to Stare rights, though doubtless- 
not intended by their authors to authorize and not legitimately 
authorizing the conclusions which a peculiar school of politicians 
subsequently drew from them. Those resolutions were believed 
to announce the true theory of State relations, and as such be¬ 
came fundamental points of Democratic faith as maintained by 
Jefferson and Madison, and have been constantly upheld since 
by that party which has shaped the policy of the Government 
for three-fourths of its existence. The practical application of 
those doctrines to authorize secession was, indeed, first made in 
New England during the late war with Great Britain. The pur¬ 
pose of seceding was seriously agitated in her State Legislatures, 
and in all probability would have resulted in open rebellion but 
for the timely treaty which terminated the war. Secession, the 
illegitimate offspring of sound principles, was thus for the time 
baffled in her mistaken aspirations. She was, however, again 
evoked from her obscurity, a fresh competitor for public favor, 
by the nullification politicians of South Carolina. A wise policy 
of compromise oir.the part of the Government at that time averted 
a crisis. Increased plausibility was subsequently given to her 
pretensions by the genius of Calhoun and other leading statesmen 
of the South ; and unquestionably they had become so extensively 
received as to lend much support to die recent rebellion. I be¬ 
lieve, however, that the claims of this spurious issue of Demo¬ 
cratic doctrine have always been rejected, North and South, by 
the soundest and wisest of our political teachers. 

Thirty-seven years ago, in 1830, the Senate became the theatre 
of a memorable contest as to the true construction of the Consti¬ 
tution upon the relative powers of the Federal and State Govern¬ 
ments. It was memorable from the character of the contestants, 
M ehster, of vast intellect and resources, without a superior in 
powers of debate ; and Hayne, who lacked no element of skill, 
ingenuity, or spirit, for the maintenance of a peculiar theory. 
Webster was the advocate of consolidation because lie supported 
the protective interest, and that theory was deemed necessary to 
procure its establishment, llayne was, on the contrar} 7 , the 





7 


champion of a free market, in which the products of his own 
locality would find a return of their full value. Thus this debate 
was an exhibition ot the best efforts of their greatest advocates 
in- defense of their sectional interests. But a surpassing interest 
attaches to the contest from the subject of dispute. This was of 
the utmost practical importance, the great Hew Englander main¬ 
taining that the Federal Constitution is a government formed by 
the people of the United States in their aggregate capacity, as 
one mass; and that the only remedies for a State resisting Fed¬ 
eral legislation as unconstitutional are those pointed out by the 
instrument itself, the decision of the Supreme Court, an amend 
ment of the Constitution itself, or lastly, in cases not provided for 
by the instrument, the remedy of revolution. And the eminen; 
Carolinian defending the opposite thesis, that the Constitution is 
a compact to which the States in their sovereign capacities are 
the parties; and that in virtue of the still subsisting State sov¬ 
ereignty, a State may nullify a law deemed by her unconstitu¬ 
tional, and thus check Federal action within her territory until 
Congress shall have obtained the necessary power by an amend¬ 
ment of the compact by three-fourths of the States. 

It will be remembered that the Democratic administration of 
General Jackson was then in power, and how the threat of the 
State of South Carolina to carry into act the doctrines supported 
by Mr. Hayne was met by the Executive, speaking by the voice 
and pen of Edward Livingston, his Secretary of State. That 
learned and able jurist and patriotic statesman, in his speech in 
the Senate on Mr. Foot’s resolutions, and afterward in President 
Jackson’s proclamation in 1833, drew the line of distinction be¬ 
tween the Federal and State authority in a manner which, till 
the recent outbreak, had commanded the general approbation of 
the country. In those great efforts, the force of whose logic has 
never been broken, it was demonstrated that the sovereignty of 
the people was divided; one portion ot it being vested in the 
General Government for the purposes specified iu the instrument 
of compact, the other retained for local self-government. Ho 
State possessed under the Constitution the right of nullifying by 
veto or withdrawal the action of the General Government; and 
this, whether the Constitution were the result of the action of 
the people as one body, or as separate communities. Mr. Liv¬ 
ingston, however, rejected the doctrine of Webster, that the 
people of the United States had in their aggregate capacity 
established the General Government; for, to use his own lan¬ 
guage— 

“ It would lead to the most disastrous results ; it would place three-fourths of the 
States at the mercy of one fourth, and lead inevitably to a consolidated Govern¬ 
ment, and finally to monarchy, if the doctrine were generally admitted; and if 
partially so and opposed, to civil dissensions.” 

He argued that if both governments were created by the people 




8 


as one people, it would matter little in the estimation of those 
who received, the doctrine whether any particular power was ex¬ 
erted-by the Federal Government or the State. Upon various 
pleas it would be imagined for the benefit of the people that the 
General Government should exercise this power or that until 
the whole aggregate of the reserved powers should be taken pos¬ 
session of by the General Government and absorbed. It would 
be but a step from this to centralizing it in a single man. 1 refer 
to this debate to show that the positions I have assumed were 
those recognized, not by the Democratic party in the person of 
President Jackson, but generally by men of all parties at the 
tine. 

The Jackson proclamation fixed the true interpretation of the 
Constitution; and, as thus interpreted, it subsists to us at this 
day, after the country has passed the greatest struggle of which 
history bears record. The cardinal points of the Jackson con¬ 
struction I regard as of the highest importance for the welfare of 
this people, and I think should be held up for public recognition 
upon every fitting occasion. They fix in perpetuity upon the 
chart of our national policy the position of those dangerous rocks, 
the Scylla of consolidation on the one hand, and on the other the 
Charybdis of secession—between which alone are found free and 
safe soundings. But, whether deriving its origin from erroneous 
theory or from the just right of revolution misapplied, the result 
of the late contest has been adverse to those who rested it upon 
either. The rebellion has been suppressed, the oneness of the 
United States as a nation, and the extension of its government 
over all the territory which formerly acknowledged its authority, 
have been effectually maintained. 

It was upon the theory of this continued oneness that the war 
for the suppression of the rebellion was initiated and conducted 
to a successful issue. If secession was an accomplished fact, es¬ 
tablishing the independence of the seceding States, then where 
was any legitimate cause of war, as arising from the act of seces¬ 
sion ? Obviously there was none. On the principles of the 
Declaration of Independence every nation has the right, unob¬ 
structed by any other, “ to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi¬ 
ness ” in its own way ; and the South should therefore have been 
permitted to “ depart in peace. ” But the subsistence of the 
Union having been successfully asserted, how is it that the seced¬ 
ing States can be said, in any sense, to be out of the Union? 
Surely they cannot be so by reason of an ineffectual attempt at 
revolution. That they are not out of the Union is the great fact 
which the issue of the contest has decided. The Southern States 
are, therefore, still integral parts of the Union, with the same 
rights as States, no more, nd less, as they had before the rebellion. 

It must be admitted, indeed, that whatever was put in issue in 
this contest has been decided adversely to the unsuccessful party. 
The issue at the outset was the existence or non-existence of the 






9 


Lnion. As the war progressed the institution of slavery was 
also made an issue as a war measure as one of the means allowed, 
it was maintained by the laws of war, to harass an enemy. When 
the rebel power was broken and their armies surrendered, they 
accepted the result.; they abandoned the scheme of independence, 
separate and confederate ; they consented to the extinction of 
slavery. They have done more. The States have resumed, as 
far as in them lies, their normal* relations to the Federal Govern¬ 
ment by renewing their allegiance and electing Representatives 
to the national Legislature. 

Now, while such is the condition of things as regards the rebel 
States, what is the course of the Government toward them? I 
shall speak first of the course pursued by Congress, and after¬ 
ward ot that adopted by the President, for unhappily the two 
are in conflict. 

The course of Congress in regard to the rebel States is based 
upon the assumption that a reconstruction of the Government as 
to those States is what they are called upon to achieve. This 
assumes again that the old Government, the Constitution of 1789, 
has as to those States been destroyed. But if so, wherein or 
how? Not surely by the decisive success of the Union arms in 
establishing the existence and supremacy of the Federal charter; 
not by the surrender of the rebel armies—their implied abandon¬ 
ment of the issues for which they resorted to force, and their 
prompt return to obedience to the paramount law. The Govern¬ 
ment was not broken up by an attempted withdrawal and a claim 
to a State sovereignty and independence, which on an appeal to 
the sword the seceding States failed to establish. The congres¬ 
sional idea of reconstruction, therefore, proceeds upon an assump¬ 
tion not sustained by fact. 

As growing out of this assumption, however, and consequent 
upon it, resort is had to another docirine, that of an assumed for¬ 
feiture by the rebel States of their rights in the Union, which is 
held an all-sufficient justification of the policy proposed. To any 
unsophisticated apprehension I need hardly urge that the appli¬ 
cation of any such doctrine is as utterly without constitutional 
warrant and as baseless as the idea of-a dissolution of the Gov¬ 
ernment for some purposes and not for all. Forfeiture as to 
States is not a constitutional penalty, and in a Government of de¬ 
fined powers like ours has no place. Forfeiture may be pretended 
and enforced where one of the contending parties is the superior 
of the other ; but in our Government the members are all equal. 
It may consistently be applied by a monarch to a rebellious por¬ 
tion of his subjects; it may have place between independent 
powers in favor of the victor. It is unregulated by law, and is 
whatever the conqueror chooses to make it. It is the reckless 
assertion of the right of the strongest. 

The Constitution does indeed provide for its alteration by sub¬ 
mitting propositions for this purpose to the States, which shall 



10 


be valid as amendments when ratified by three-fotirtbs of tneir 
number. But this means their voluntary ratification by three 
fourths of ah the States, and not the exclusion of ten States irom 
the enjoyment of their constitutional rights as such until, with 
their own consent or without, they shall have submitted to this 
forced ratification as a condition-precedent. 

The imposition by the adhering States of conditions upon the 
seceding, while it implies a superiority in the former and is op¬ 
posed to our system of government, is at the same tune in gross 1 
and flagrant violation of the principles on which the war was 
professed to be waged. Attention has been too often called to 
those principles in this body and elsewhere for ns to forget that 
the proclamation of President Lincoln at the beginning of the war 
demanded only the cessation of the rebellion * and that Congress, 
directly after the first battle of Ball Run, made by joint resolu¬ 
tion that memorable declaration contained in the Crittenden reso¬ 
lution. 

This purpose, thus distinctly announced at the beginning, was 
frequently repeated during its progress, both by the President 
and Congress and by our Generals in the field. It was further 
declared in the Republican platform of 1864, and the unity of 
the nation was also recognized by the passage of the bill appor¬ 
tioning representatives in 1862. Nov/, with this record, how 
shall we acquit ourselves to the Army and Navy, to the world, 
and to our posterity of the charge of deliberate unfairness, if we 
now, at the close of the war, assume it to have been waged for 
the purpose of spoliation and oppression? Would those gallant 
soldiers who gave victory to our arms have flocked to your 
standard with such alacrity of patriotic devotion, such reckless¬ 
ness of personal sacrifice and suffering, had yon frankly told them 
at the outset that they were to fight for so unhallowed an object as 
this ? I will not wrong them so much as for an instant to suppose 
them capable of such complicity in the national dishonor. 

The cessation of resistance to the execution of the Federal laws 
and the abolition of slavery being the only terms, at any time du¬ 
ring the war, required to be complied with by the rebels in order 
to their restoration to the Union, on the return of peace should 
we vary these terms ? Is it consistent with our honor to set up 
new and exacting conditions after we have gotten the rebels in 
our power ? Sir, I will yet trust the intelligence and virtue of 
this people to save the nation from such a humiliating situation 
as this. 

I wish to look a moment at the principal of those conditions' 
upon which Congress insists. They have passed over the Presi¬ 
dent’s veto certain laws and propositions of amendment to the 
Constitution, the terms of which they require to be complied 
with before the States of the South shall be again received into- 
fellowship. 

By the Freedmen’s Bureau bill that institution was made a 





II 


permanent establishment, with a field for its operations coexten¬ 
sive with the existence of freedmen. 

It would thus be. as operative in Pennsylvania as in Virginia. 
The powers vested in this new tribunal are such as may well ex¬ 
cite our most earnest solicitude. In all cases affecting a negro 
“military jurisdiction and protection” are required to be ex¬ 
tended to. him. This in criminal cases sets martial law and the 
officers of the.bureau above the laws and officers of the States, 
and is a violation of the constitutional guarantees of security from 
arrest without warrant and of jury trial. 

The system which is thus attempted to be legalized imposes an 
enormous addition to the burdens of the people, while the reporc 
of the commissioners appointed to examine into the condition 
of the freedmen shows the terrible abuses of which the bureau 
is the instrument, even toward those whom it proposed especially 
to benefit. While thus unjust to white and black race alike, it 
is founded upon a false principle, that of placing in the condition 
of dependents upon the Government four millions of thriftless 
population. 

The first section of the amendment proposes to make citizens 
of all persons, regardless of race or color, born or naturalized, in 
this country *, and it proposes penalties upon all who in any way 
attempt to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. How 
many and what are the privileges essentially belonging to citi¬ 
zens is a thing very undefined. If Congress has the right to de¬ 
clare who shall be citizens, it has the right at the same time to 
declare what shall be their privileges. The Constitution framed 
by our fathers left this matter with the States, only declaring 
that those qualified under the State laws to vote for the most nu¬ 
merous brauch of the State Legislatures should be qualified to 
elect representatives to Congress. But Congress, now usurping 
the power from the States, while it makes citizens of whom it 
pleases, may also define their privileges. Thus under this amend¬ 
ment the elective franchise may at any time be declared one of 
those privileges when negro suffrage becomes unalterably fast¬ 
ened upon the country. 

In framing our Federal system the States reserved to themselves 
the control of this matter of suffrage, as essential to the preserva¬ 
tion of their freedom. In the exercise of the mass of powers re¬ 
tained by the States for their local government it was essential 
that they should determine who should be qualified participants, 
for if this could be done by any power outside of the States their 
self government, and consequently their freedom, would be no 
longer secure. That “ republican form of government” guaran¬ 
tied to the States by the Constitution would become an imprac¬ 
ticable thing. 

Self-government is the essence of republicanism, and to this 
effect was the language of Mr. Madison in the Convention. So 
long as a State can determine who or what classes of its citizens 




12 


shall have a voice in the selection of the State officers—of those 
who shall make and administer the laws—just so long its govern¬ 
ment is republican. But if this power be taken from it and 
lodged elsewhere, the republican character, and therefore the 
liberties of the States have received a fatal blow. The annihila¬ 
tion of the State governments is by this privation effectually con¬ 
summated. The local governments are thenceforward not even 
republican in “ form,” and in this matter not to be republican in 
form is not to be so in substance. By thus forcing upon the 
southern States, negro suffrage it is proposed to raise the negro 
to an equality with the southern whites, who belong to that race 
which has thus far in all that elevates and dignities humanity— 
in arts and arms and institutions of government—proved itself 
the foremost in this world. The incapacity of xnan for self-gov¬ 
ernment has often been commented upon by the philosophic his¬ 
torian ; and the republics of Greece and Borne, of modern Italy 7 , 
and of attempts in that direction in England and France, have 
been pointed to as melancholy proofs of the fact. It has hitherto 
been supposed even among ourselves, that free institutions could 
only live while supported by the intelligence and virtue of the 
people ; but in the reckless rapidity of our republican progress 
we seem to have discovered that a democracy may well subsist 
where the people who compose it have neither of those princi¬ 
ples to rest upon. It must not be forgotten that the whole num¬ 
ber of votes of the States which it is meant to punish in this way 
is only ffifty-three, while that of the other States is one hundred 
and ninety-two. The disparity alone should disarm fear and 
moderate exaction. 

The Constitution, in section five of article first, provides that 
“ each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and 
qualifications of its own members ; ” that is, whether they have 
been properly elected, and whether there is any constitutional 
or legal objection to them personally; this power only applies to 
the individual representatives, which is a very different thing 
from Congress excluding whole States from representation upon 
condition ot adopting a constitutional amendment which changes 
the basis of representation. There is no warrant in the Constitu¬ 
tion for such an exercise of tyranny. Had such a condition been 
insisted upon at the adoption of theConstitution, it must be admit¬ 
ted there would have been no Government. But it it could be 
supposed that the excluded States would accept the amendment, 
how dangerous is the principle which underlies it ! If a party ma¬ 
jority now can change the Constitution by forced amendments, 
what is to prevent another majority at a future day from chang¬ 
ing it again ? If a majority can now in this way force universal 
suffrage upon ten States in the absence of representation, why 
should not a majority hereafter require an equalization of State 
representation in the Senate and exclude New England, taxing 
her in the mean time until she shall give her consent ? 








IB 


New England, under the application of her own rule, might 
thus find herself suddenly stripped of five-sixths of her repre¬ 
sentation in the higher branch of tne national Legislature. While 
there is much in the New Eugland character which no intelli¬ 
gent mind can fail to admire—while all bear willing tribute to 
her energy and thrift, to her indomitable will, her learning and 
large culture—yet there are few outside of her limits who do not 
feel compelled to abate largely their estimations of these quali¬ 
ties from their proneness to misdirection and disturbance of the 
public peace. Her characteristic activity of mind acknowledges 
nothing as settled, whether in religion, in science, in politics, or 
law, and exposes her in a special degree to those storms of fanat¬ 
icism and party zeal which are apt to carry infinite mischief in 
their train. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that, having 
heretofore profited so largely by shaping the legislation of the 
country to her own advantage, she is now, with concentrated 
energy, struggling to maintain that advantage even at the sacri¬ 
fice ot the union of the States. She dreads a full representation 
of the great agricultural South, acting in conjunction with the 
great agricultural Northwest, and the commercial interests of 
New York and the States of the Pacific coast. These sections, 
representing in the main a community of interest, it is not only 
feared, but known, can give the law to the country ; and thus will 
follow a readjustment of our internal revenue and the policy of 
our foreign commerce. 

The conditions proposed by Congress, exhibiting such strong 
indications ot their purpose and origin, such shameless outrage 
upon justice and every conservative principle, such usurpation 
of Federal powers, and such violation of State Rights, could not 
be expected to be received without question, even by the Repub¬ 
lican majority, if submitted in the regular way, to the delibera¬ 
tion of each House separately. It was necessary to resort to 
revolutionary France for an instrument for the production of the 
monstrous scheme. In the “ committee of safety ” of the con¬ 
stituent assembly, they were presented with a precedent for that 
of “ reconstruction.” Their designs not being of a nature to en¬ 
dure the open light of day, had to be matured in the mysterious 
secresy of an extraordinary committee. Refractory members 
were to be crushed, and all who in any way opposed themselves 
to the purposes of the committee were to be relentlessly sacrificed. 
It cannot be denied that, if alien to our institutions, the machin¬ 
ery was, at least, admirably adapted to securing the unity and 
strength requisite for the success of such a policy of destruction. 

So perfectly, indeed, is the policy of Congress adapted to break 
up the Union—to prevent the return of the country in all its 
parts under one government—that it is hard to avoid believing this 
to have been the object of it. The authors of this policy know 
well, by consulting their own breasts, that their southern breth¬ 
ren will never consent to accept such terms as these. They 





14 


know it is requiring what they would themselves never consent 
to in like circumstances. VV’hile it is irreconcilable with the 
hypothesis of a still subsisting Union, and in violation of the 
rights guarantied by the Constitution, which is its bond, to every 
State, it is adtnissable only on the supposition that the war was 
waged for subjugation, which yet Congress and the Executive, 
-during its progress, most carefully disclaimed. It assumes that 
subjugation has been in fact effected, and that, with the inso¬ 
lent triumph of conquerors, we are now at perfect liberty to 
trample upon and oppress a fallen foe. Feeling that they have no 
support for their course in the Federal compact, in common justice 
or reason, some of the leaders of this policy do not hesitate to 
avow their hatred of the Union and their determination that it 
shall never be restored. In this point of view their course is 
Intelligent and consistent. But in assuming this ground, they 
place themselves as much in the attitude of rebellion as the most 
arrant rebels whom they seek to humble. Others seek to justify 
their vindictive policy by resting its defense upon the rights of* 
successful belligerents under the law of nations. It is true that, 
after much delay and great reluctance, the defacto secession was 
acknowledged, and belligerent rights and their consequences 
were conceded to the rebels. But this was only from the neces¬ 
sity of the case, and in so far as the public law was applicable to 
our situation. We had to maintain at the same time the integ¬ 
rity of the national Government, so that the belligerent rights 
conceded had relation only to the conduct of the war. It was, 
in our case, but lex sub superiori lege ; aud at the termination 
of the war, the Constitution, the municipal law in all its vigor, 
resumed its sway, and the States, on again placing themselves in 
the constitutional relation to the Federal Government, were in 
the same instant reinstated in the rights reserved to them and 
their people by the common charter. 

Under the municipal law the penalty was to be meted out, not 
to States, but to individuals. The extent of punishment thus to 
be inflicted was a matter for the consideration of courts and for 
the executioner of the law. It is idle, sir, to talk of punishing the 
rebels for their treason. The spirit of the age is against it. This 
vindictive spirit and purpose which characterizes the congressional 
measures has about it too much of that uncompromising intoler¬ 
ance of Cato the Censor, who, it will be remembered, concluded 
pyery speech which he made in the Senate—no matter how irrel¬ 
evant the subject—with the savage declaration, “ Carthage must 
be destroyed.” As between foreign and rival States, and in a 
heathen age of the world, such an inexorable sentiment might 
yeceive some degree of toleration ; but in a Christian age and 
country, and between different portions of the same people, be¬ 
tween countrymen and brethren, surely the ill-disguised design 
•expressed here for the total annihilation of the South can be re? 
peived only with abhorrence, 




It is agreed by writers on public law that where great masses 
Of people, actuated by a common impulse which they believe t o 
be right, however erroneously, proceed to use force for the asser¬ 
tion of their principles, that these masses are not'guilty of trea¬ 
son, morally or legally. No one is guilty of treason for obeying 
the Government de facto. The existence of a common sentiment 
so extensive, of a resistance so Unanimous, supposes a cause. 
If the cause were just and good, its success relieved it of* the* 
character of treason ; and whether good or bad its failure was a 
sufficient penalty. Without a recognition of the laws of war to 
govern the contest, our civil war on both sides would have been 
one of extermination. No prisoners would have been taken, no 
exchanges made. But the law of nations, the slow growth of 
civilization, interposes between belligerents, whether independ¬ 
ent Powers or divided portions of the same Power, in favor of 
humanity, and to prevent the barbarous and useless effusion of 
blood. These laws have been constantly ameliorated under the 
progressive spirit of Christianity ; and we find Montesquieu ad¬ 
vocating their especial applicability in a republic, and writers- 
like Ilallam and Macaulay maintaining that these laws should 
have strictly governed in the war of the great rebellion in Eng¬ 
land. Charles the First, says Macaulay, should not have been 
executed ; and as little would he have been justified, in ease of 
hi8 success, in putting his adversaries to death. In the suppres¬ 
sion of the Irish rebellion of 1848 by England, we have an ex¬ 
ample of a wise clemency, aiming to heal the deep seated dis¬ 
contents of a people, rather than standing upon the strict ground 
of legal right, to keep alive the fires of irritation, by the exercise 
of a cruel and vindictive policy. 

Far different from the revolutionary, unjust, vindictive, and 
unwise policy with which the Congress- would deal with the 
rebel States, is that which our firm and enlightened Executive 
has inaugurated. Peace having been restored by the submission 
of the rebels and such action in the seceding States, as recog¬ 
nized the authority of the paramount law, his patriotic glance 
at once apprehended the situation and the line of duty. The 
President no longer of a divided but a united country, he saw 
that it was not for him to “ give up to a party what was meant 
for mankind,’’ but that the position called him to merge the par¬ 
tisan in the Chief Magistrate and the statesman. He might 
naturally desire to carry with him in his views the legislative co¬ 
ordinate department of the Government; but if they differed his 
duty was not the less cleat. He was to obey the oath which he 
had sworn, to maintain the Constitution of his country. He 
must be true to his bright record of consistent patriotism, exhi¬ 
bited throughout a long life passed in the service of the Govern¬ 
ment and in every official grade. He had private griefs enough 
to incline him to the measures of the most extreme radical. For 
the love of his country and her institutions he retained his posi- 





16 


tion in the Senate when every other Senator of his section had 
withdrawn. He endured with stoical firmness, the ruin ot his 
private fortune and the unwearied persecution of open and 
secret foes. 

Members of his own household hadfalllen upon the battle-field 
in defense of the cause which he had most at heart, l et he 
swerved not. It was not that he hated secession less, but that 
he loved his country more. The moral grandeur which he has 
exhibited in such circumstances of peculiar trial is such as has 
been shown by few in the whole extent of history. “The just 
man, tenacious of his purpose,” so handsomely eulogized by the 
Roman poet, the storm of partisan fury may beat upon him in 
vain. He may break beneath it, but he will never bend. 
Whether successful or unsuccessful in his object of giving once 
more peace and happiness to a distracted land, his merit is the ! 
same. He has met his own responsibilities with a clear percep¬ 
tion, a determined will, and an unflinching breast. On the sup¬ 
pression by Cicero of the conspiracy of Cataline, it will be re¬ 
membered that, at the suggestion of Cato, he was honored by 
the people with the title of the “father of his country.” With 
signal propriety this title was bestowed upon that great and 
good man whose military success gave us existence as a nation. 

I submit, sir, that it belongs equally to him who saves his country ! 
from destruction. 

Filled with a just apprehension of his position, its importance 
and duties, whatever obstacles may oppose their performance, the 
President, like G-ustavus Yasa and William of Orange, in like 
circumstances, I trust, will “ stem the current and march through 
the thick array.” His fidelity and success in the past is an assur¬ 
ance of a glorious triumph in the future. But if in the night of 
our distress it should prove true that “ republics are ungrateful,” I 
(since Cicero was banished after his deliverance of Rome from 
the grasp of Cataline, and Aristides driven from Greece because 
his exalted worth brought down upon him the vengeance of ; 
rivals and desperate men,) the historian must yet record that this 
man, whose whole life has been devoted to the elevation of the 
masses and the maintenance of the cause of industrial occupation, i 
was chiefly instrumental in placing upon the statute-book an act 
of great public benificence. Already under its practical work- 1 
ing one hundred thousand homes have been secured and settled 
on the public domain, and in the not far distant future the num¬ 
ber will rise to a million homesteads, the smoke of whose cabins 
on the Mississippi, the Missouri, the Yellowstone, the Columbia, 
and the Arkansas, rising from firesides made happy by this 
kindly provision will be so many enduring monuments to his 
memory and to his fame. 

When the forces of the resisting States laid down their arms 
he recognized all theif reserved rights and their equal rights in 
the federation. It was contended that the President, in this 





17 


action toward the Southern States, had exceeded the executive 
functions; that he had exercised power which belonged exclu¬ 
sively to the Legislature. He had, however, without incurring 
censure on that account, under laws already established, restored 
the mails and reopened the channels of commerce, and re-es¬ 
tablished the courts. It was particularly objected that the Presi¬ 
dent had no power “ to make peace. ” But if the executive has 
not, what branch of the Government has? It is clear that the 
power is not vested in Congress; for a proposition offered in the. 
Convention which framed the Constitution for “ a concurrence of 
two-thirds of the Senate to make treaties of peace without the 
concurrence of the President” was voted down by a vote of eight 
States to three. (See Madison Papers, volume five of Elliott’s 
Debates, pp. 524, 525.) Treaties of peace were therefore left as 
any other treaties, requiring in all cases the concurrence of the 
President. Making peace is therefore, under the Constitution, as 
much a presidential as a legislative function. It is, indeed, much 
more so, as the act is executive in its nature, and one for which 
a deliberative body, from its number and lack of unity, is unfit. 

But the objection proceeds upon a mistake of the question ; 
for it is not a case of making peace with a foreign Power. It is 
wholly one of internal administration, in which the municipal 
law alone governs, and in which the Constitution makes it the 
duty of the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed. 
The rebellion having been suppressed, the laws resumed their 
sway. 

Chief among the rights to which the people of the seceding 
States were entitled upon their return to the Union were those of 
representation in both bodies of Congress. These were accord¬ 
ingly conceded by the President. An omission to concede them 
would have involved a plain violation of express provisions of 
the Constitution and of his official oath. By section four of ar¬ 
ticle four— 

“The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican 
form of government.” 

By section two of article one— 

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every 
second year by the people of the several States.” • 

And by section three of the same article— 

“ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each 
State,” &c. 

Here was authority enough for one who had no ends to serve 
but those of country. Had he needed more it might have been 
found in the Farewell Address of the President who was first in 
the hearts of his countrymen. From that he would have received 
the lofty teaching that— 




18 


w The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter 
their constitutions of government; but the Constitu tion which at any time exists, 
till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obliga¬ 
tory upon all. ” 

He might also, in the same rich legacy of patriotism and politi¬ 
cal wisdom, have read a lesson not less worthy of attention to 
another department of the Government, which seeks, by consoli¬ 
dation of unauthorized power, to deprive whole States and com¬ 
munities of their guarantied rights. The lesson is : 

“ If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitu¬ 
tional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in 
the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpa¬ 
tion, for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the cus^ 
tomary weapon by which free Governments are destroyed. The precedent must 
always greatly Overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which 
the use can at any time yield. ” 

Sir, if there be any principle of democratic government more 
firmly established than any other in our history, it is that of the 
inseparability of the rights of taxation and representation. We 
established by the success of our revolution that the home Gov¬ 
ernment had no right to tax us without our consent, or in other 
words, without being heard by our representatives, and without 
having through them a voice in deciding the question of taxa¬ 
tion. So great and fundamental was this right deemed that our 
fathers found in it sufficient justification for overturning their 
Government. It has been recognized as the basis of every Gov¬ 
ernment, State and Federal, which they have framed since. From 
the reverence with which this right has been regarded in this 
country, and the immense struggles and sacrifices made here to 
maintain it, it may properly be called the American principle. 
Yet how strange is the spectacle we behold ! A dominant ma¬ 
jority in the Legislature, while admitting the rebel States to be 
in the Union for the purpose oY taxation, yet maintain that they 
are out of it for the purpose of representation. 

You will remember, sir, that the Homan republic granted the 
full rights of citizenship even to the aliens of conquered prov¬ 
inces, and this regardless of the bitterness and obstinacy of their 
resistance to the standard of the republic. When once subdued 
and their defeat acknowledged, they were received into the en¬ 
joyment of equal rights with the inhabitants of the city itself. 
“I am a Roman citizen,” was the talismanic formula which se¬ 
cured the inhabitant of distant Sicily protection against ihe ex¬ 
tortion of a Verres as much as it did from any other injury Ihe 
dweller upon the Seven Hills. And this was done, sir, in a Gov- 
ernment which was without.a written constitution, from a sense 
of justice and policy only, and was the great secret why Rome 
retained her compacted strength while constantly extending her 
boundaries. Here, on the other hand, in a Government of de- 





19 


fined powers, in a polity which is professedly one of self-govern¬ 
ment, the party which happens at a critical juncture to be pos¬ 
sessed of the power denies self-government to the other, though 
by the common charter the rights of all are equal. It matters 
not, at er peace is restored, that one of these parties has been in 
rebellion against the common Government, for the status ante 
helium instantly revives. 

Sir, it is impossible to apply the principles assumed by the 
majority here in a Government like ours without adopting the 
theory of the consolidation and centralization of the entire sov¬ 
ereignty of the people in the General Government. I have 
already occupied the attention of the House upon this subject, 
yet its importance at this juncture seems to demand some further 
I remark. I fear, sir, that the difference is too little known or 
considered, the danger too little perceived or heeded; yet no 
question is of such vital importance. JNo reader.of our history 
can forget how jealous, at the formation of the Government, were 
the States of parting with any portion of their sovereignty. This 
jealousy was natural; for so long as the States retained their full 
powers every individual possessed, in the authority of his State, 
the most ample protection for his private rights and for the cor- 
[ rection of abuses, while he felt that his interests would receive 
the most careful attention in the local legislation. He did not 
feel that his welfare would be quite so well consulted if any of 
the functions of sovereignty were yielded by the State and de¬ 
posited in the hands of agents not amenable to State authority, 
and it might prove, regardless of individual.rights and not sympa¬ 
thizing with individual interests. It was, therefore, only after a 
long struggle that the States consented to conferring upon a com¬ 
mon (government such functions of sovereignty as could be best 
exercised by it for the general benefit of the whole. While they 
did so they were equally careful to secure themselves in the pos¬ 
session of the remainder by inserting in the Federal Constitution 
the provision that— • 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor pro¬ 
hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people ”—Arlicte 10, Amendments. 

How, it is of the utmost importance that these boundaries 
should be preserved ; that they should neither be intrenched 
upon by State action nor by an enlargement of the Federal 
authority, a tittle beyond what is absolutely required to secure 
the objects set forth in the preamble to the Constitution. State 
sovereignty, except in so far as granted away by express stipula¬ 
tion, subsists in its full vigor, and should be guarded with the 
utmest vigilance. If State rights are absorbed and curtailed in 
the manner assumed by the amendment which confers upon the 
General Government tiie control of the right of suffrage, the in- 
dividual is placed at a great distance from the guardianship of 




20 


* 



the sovereign authority, and his State becomes of no more im- " 
portance in the Government than is the county as respects the 
government of the State. 

The great future which spreads before the country demands 
for the fulfillment of our mission the preservation of our liberties 
in the purity in which they were established. The vastness of 
territory for which coming generations will have to legislate will 
appear from the consideration of a single fact in our history. It 
is the facility with which the Government, for reasons deemed . 
expedient at the time, renounced by treaty with Great Britain a 
very tenable claim to the country lying between 49° and 54° 40', 
a territory sufficient for the formation of sixteen States as large 
as Pennsylvania. From the readiness with which so extensive a 
region, for reasons not imperati ve, was granted away, may be 
understood the vast extent of that which still remains the pro¬ 
perty of the nation and is open for the reception of our institu¬ 
tions. America, comprising the States which now are, and those • 
yet to be, is the great theater of modern enterprise and political 
experiment. She must be either republican or despotic. If we 
yield our theory of State rights, and union of limited powers, we 
surrender the great principle of free government and may pre¬ 
pare, first for a limited monarchy in the shape of a consolidated 
government, and eventually for a despotism. Our safety and 
prosperity as a nation depend entirely upon the inflexible fidelity 
with which we adhere to and maintain the great boundaries of 
power, as I have endeavored to point them out. The Union is 
not a union of force. It cannot be preserved by force. It rests 
upon interest and the mutual attachment of the members. 

When we look, sir, at the unexampled progress of our country 
in the past, in the limited portion of it brought under settlement, 
and consider the vast area still open for occupation and develop¬ 
ment, what powerful inducements do we not see for the preser¬ 
vation of the Union ? Our territory, embracing an area of nearly 
three millions of square miles, is equal to that of Europe. In 
natural wealth, and in the distribution of the great highways of 
intercourse afforded by water communication, it surpasses any 
quarter of the globe. In its abundance of the pecious metals, 
and minerals ; in coal, iron, lead, copper, and petroleum, the ma¬ 
terial of labor, it is the marvel of the world. Its agricultural ca¬ 
pabilities, extending through eveiy variety of climate and produc¬ 
tion which belong to the temperate zone, are equally unrivaled. 

It has been calculated that in ten years our product of the cereals 
will exceed those of England and France together; while a Eu¬ 
ropean population greater than that of either of those countries 
is supported by our cotton. Under the influence of our free in¬ 
stitutions the development of our industry has kept pace with our 
natural advantages. We vie with the oldest and most civilized 
of existing nations in the products of the useful and ornamental 
arts, in valuable inventions, and in works of intellect and taste. 








21 


To united America the world owes the steamboat, the electric tele¬ 
graph, and the monitor. By the genius of an American the cable 
binds by electric ties the Eastern and Western hemispheres, and 
in another lustrum an iron band will connect the great oceans 
which wash the shores of our continent, and the patriot in the 
full exultation of his heart may stand upon the golden shores of 
the Pacific and there witness the new direction which will then 


be given to the great commercial current of the world. 

We have upward of thirty thousand miles of railroad, more 
than four times as much as England, and more than any other 
country. The Government has still a thousand million acres of un¬ 
occupied land, and our area is capable of supporting a population 
as great in number. Sir, it is in our power to realize all this, and 
more than our wildest dreams have pictured. It can be done, 
but only in preserving in their purity the institutions transmitted 
us by our fathers and now in our responsible keeping. 

A war with foreign Powers sooner or later is inevitable. W e 
have high authority for saying that nation will rise against nation. 
The struggle for empire, for commercial advantages, for the pro¬ 
pagation of systems, religious and political, will forever go on. 
The evil passions and ambitions of men exist now as in the days 
of Cataline and the Caesars. The very attempt to establish on this 
continent a purely popular Government is so revolutionary and 
dangerous as an example to the regal Governments across the wa¬ 
ter, that they will sooner or later make a combined effort for its 
overthrow. ' This in itself should produce a unity of sentiment 
in the North for the restoration of fraternal relations.. 

In such a conflict the South would become a necessity. From 
the Capes of the Delaware to the Rio Grande are embraced the 
mouths of the great rivers. The revolution could never have 
been successful without her hearty co-operation, and without her 
gallant aid in 1812 we should have lost our country and her in¬ 
dependence. We must not only secure to her equality in repre¬ 
sentation, but equal justice in every department of the adminis¬ 
tration of the Government. Without this there can be no fraterna 
relations, and we thus wickedly and blindly cast away that pop¬ 
ular affection which is the great basis of our institutions and the 
bulwark of our defense and security. The English Government 
is the work of a thousand years, and although great and powerful, 
and in one sense eminently successful^ yet it is.ni£ int f ned 
the concentrated power of the House of Lords and by the a y 
and navy. Our Government is still an experiment Our popu¬ 
lation is sparse compared with the extent of our territory and the 
magnitude of our resources. While Belgium has apopu^ mn^ 
four hundred and thirty-two to the square mile, and England 
three hundred and seventy-one, the United States have h« tern 
It requires no reach of vision to see in the not iar distent iutme 
a change of this condition. From almost every country o Eu¬ 
rope streams of emigration are directed to our slides. Our ca. 


22 



pacity to support a population equal to the most densely inhab-' 
ited district of England or Germany must be admitted by all. To 
live and prosper, then, as a great Power in the future, and to avoid 
a repetition of the bloody and devastating conflict through which 
we have just passed, equal and exact justice in maintaining this 
republican system are just as necessary as the two well-adjusted 
forces in maintaining the movements of the planetary world. 

In the gloom which pervades the land, and the uncertainty 
which hangs like a pall over the future of our country, I teel 
deeply solicitous for the welfare of the State which I have the 
honor in part to represent. The preservation of the Union is as 
indispensable to the maintainance of her liberty and her future 
growth and development, as from her geographical position and 
the sturdy and virtuous character of her people she is indispen¬ 
sable to the maintenance of the Union itself. For I have no hesi¬ 
tation in saying there is not a district of country in the world of | 
equal area in which nature has been so liberal in scattering her 
treasure. Her commerce finds an outlet to the ocean through 
the Capes of the Delaware ; the great interior is filled with 
mountains of mineral, intersected with beautiful rivers and val- 1 
leys; while her western slopes embrace the heads of the Ohio, 
and hold as it were in her grasp the keys of the great valley. 

England may boast her Birmingham and her Sheffield. Al¬ 
ready in the city of Pittsburg a successful rival is to be found to 
either. This great State alone is capable of sustaining a popula¬ 
tion of twenty million souls. There is really no limit to her 
capacity to produce. The value of her western coal fields alone 
is beyond computation. The material for driving machinery is 
to be found at the base of every hill. All this is inseparably 
connected with the Union and a stable Government. We know 
the story of our colonial history and our struggle for independ¬ 
ence and for the establishment of our present system of constitu¬ 
tional government. Let it be remembered that revolution is a 
word popular in every language ; and that decay is stamped on 
all the works of man. That the greatest of American writers, as 
a check to human ambition, has pointed to Westminster Abbey, 
which contains the tombs of so many illustrious Britons, as the 
“ empire of death,” where the greatest name perishes from record 
and recollection, and its “ very monument becomes a ruin.” 
Such is the fate of nations as well as of individuals. Greece, the 
early home of the arts and the sciences, owed her distinction to 
her republican institutions as well as to the republic of letters; 
but with civil dissension came corruption, and civil war wreaked 
its vengeance upon her fair fields and beautiful cities. The Turk 
has reveled amidst her broken statuary and fallen columns. The 
clang of the saber in defense of her ancient liberties has long 
since ceased to be heard on the field of Marathon or at the base of 
Acropolis. Her sun went down in the night of barbarism and 
savage debasement. Eome, a nation that laid broad and deep 




the foundation of a lofty civilization, whose poets, orators, states¬ 
men, and historians shone like the milky-path in the heavens, 
and whose works are models at the present day, yielded to a 
similar spirit, and her power and glory have long since departed. 

“ Time, war, flood, and fire 
Have dealt upon the seven hilled city’s pride, 

She saw her glories, star by star, expire. ” 

Shall this noble experiment of free Government, this model 
Republic in the morning of its existence, be doomed to share a 
similar fate, and liberty tind a grave in the land that has been 
crimsoned with the blood of her martyrs, and that contains within 
her bosom the ashes of her Washington? No! Let the young 
America rise superior to the shackles of party and sectional in¬ 
terest, and with renewed energy and patriotic devotion cling to 
the Constitution of our fathers as our only hope, and as Mr. 
Webster has so beautifully expressed it, as the mariner clings to. 
the last plank when night and the tempest close around him. 














’ 








































. t'l I 

‘ 




























••• 















\ 































314.7“ ~ 


















f 











































































































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 













